Oooops! That's what happens when...

[Yonivore]

...you don't read them before you pass them.

Mandate Challenge Could Prevail (http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/rtd-opinion/2010/nov/07/ed-somi07-ar-634809/)


Florida federal District Court Judge Roger Vinson wrote that the government's claim that the mandate is clearly authorized by existing Supreme Court precedent is "not even a close call." He points out that "[t]he power that the individual mandate seeks to harness is simply without prior precedent," because no previous Supreme Court decision ever authorized Congress to force ordinary citizens to buy products they did not want.

An August ruling in the Virginia case by federal District Judge Henry Hudson reached the same conclusion. As Judge Hudson points out, "[n]o reported case from any federal appellate court" has ever ruled that Congress' powers "include the regulation of a person's decision not to purchase a product."

The federal government claims that Congress has the power to impose the mandate under the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Tax Clause of the Constitution. On the first two claims, Judge Vinson ruled that Supreme Court precedent doesn't clearly support the government, thereby enabling the plaintiffs' lawsuit to go forward. He outright rejected the government's claim that the mandate is constitutional because it is a "tax." It is instead a financial penalty for refusing to comply with a federal regulation. As Judge Vinson pointed out, congressional leaders consistently emphasized before the law's enactment that it was not a tax.
Apparently, the bill doesn't contain a severability clause, which usually states "notwithstanding any provision of this act being found unconstitutional, the rest of the act shall continue to be in force."

Therefore, if any part of a law is found to be unconstitutional, the entire law is unconstitutional.

Of course, this means that if the mandate is found unconstitutional, it's not just that provision that is nullified, but all of Obamacare.

Could be slap-to-the-forehead time for Obama. Doh!

We'll see.

[BlairForceDejuan]

Yep, very odd. This is document writing 101.

[Yonivore]

Well, here's to hoping the courts do their job.

[Yonivore]

nothin like good ol fashioned legislating from the bench
I think determining the constitutionality of a Congressional Act is in the job description.

[Yonivore]

White House Concedes Individual Mandate is Not Severable (http://volokh.com/2010/12/09/white-house-concedes-individual-mandate-is-not-severable/)


In a briefing of White House reporters yesterday, anticipating the forthcoming decision, the White House issued a fact sheet conceding that, should the individual mandate be held unconstitutional, the regulations being imposed on insurance companies “would” also fall:


If the constitutional challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s individual responsibility requirement ultimately prevails, it would mean that provisions preventing health insurance companies from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions would also be invalidated by the court because the two are inseparably linked. If insurance companies are required to cover those with pre-existing conditions, who are potentially more expensive to cover, without requiring everyone—both sick and healthy people—to have insurance, premiums will increase rapidly. Similarly, other provisions – including banning insurers from discriminating based on health status, age and gender – would also fall.

[Wild Cobra]

nothin like good ol fashioned legislating from the bench

This isn't legislation from the bench. It is the courts protecting the people from tyranny.

[Wild Cobra]

I think determining the constitutionality of a Congressional Act is in the job description.

No shit.

4CC, how can you not understand that?

[Nbadan]

I think determining the constitutionality of a Congressional Act is in the job description.

:lol

Only if it's in the first 14 Amendments apparently!

[Yonivore]

As predicted...


...you don't read them before you pass them.

Mandate Challenge Could Prevail (http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/rtd-opinion/2010/nov/07/ed-somi07-ar-634809/)


Apparently, the bill doesn't contain a severability clause, which usually states "notwithstanding any provision of this act being found unconstitutional, the rest of the act shall continue to be in force."

Therefore, if any part of a law is found to be unconstitutional, the entire law is unconstitutional.

Of course, this means that if the mandate is found unconstitutional, it's not just that provision that is nullified, but all of Obamacare.

Could be slap-to-the-forehead time for Obama. Doh!

We'll see.
Well, we see.

Judge strikes down healthcare reform law (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/31/us-usa-healthcare-ruling-idUSTRE70U6RY20110131?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews)


U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson ruled that the reform law's so-called individual mandate went too far in requiring that Americans start buying health insurance in 2014 or pay a penalty.

"Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void," he wrote, "This has been a difficult decision to reach and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications."
And, this is going to leave a mark...

Judge uses Obama’s words against him (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/31/judge-uses-obamas-words-against-him/)


In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, when the then-Illinois senator argued there were other ways to achieve reform short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that, ‘If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of his 78-page ruling Monday.
Doh!

[fraga]

This isn't legislation from the bench. It is the courts protecting the people from tyranny.

You're right...thank god they just sat on their hands when the nation was lied to and taken into a make believe war...damn tyrants...trying to give people Health Insurance...those fuckers...

[Yonivore]

You're right...thank god they just sat on their hands when the nation was lied to and taken into a make believe war...damn tyrants...trying to give people Health Insurance...those fuckers...
To what court case are you referring?

[jack sommerset]

As predicted...


Well, we see.

Judge strikes down healthcare reform law (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/31/us-usa-healthcare-ruling-idUSTRE70U6RY20110131?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews)


And, this is going to leave a mark...

Judge uses Obama’s words against him (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/31/judge-uses-obamas-words-against-him/)

Doh!

That darn Obongo.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

...you don't read them before you pass them.

Mandate Challenge Could Prevail (http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/rtd-opinion/2010/nov/07/ed-somi07-ar-634809/)


Apparently, the bill doesn't contain a severability clause, which usually states "notwithstanding any provision of this act being found unconstitutional, the rest of the act shall continue to be in force."

Therefore, if any part of a law is found to be unconstitutional, the entire law is unconstitutional.

Of course, this means that if the mandate is found unconstitutional, it's not just that provision that is nullified, but all of Obamacare.

Could be slap-to-the-forehead time for Obama. Doh!

We'll see.

Not surprising. The insurance companies that bought and paid for this legislation can't clean up without being able to force the young and healthy into mandatory consumption of health insurance.

Actually it's not even about cleaning up, they won't be able to stay in business without the individual mandate.

[ChumpDumper]

It's ok, we'll have universal coverage eventually and everyone will wonder what the hell the big deal was.

[ElNono]

Yoni, could you also post the two federal judge decisions that upheld the law as constitutional? You know, to have a little contrast.

This is headed to the SCOTUS regardless...

[ElNono]

This ruling was expected too. There's a reason the lawsuit was filed in Pensacola... that guaranteed a conservative judge to be at hand...

[Wild Cobra]

You're right...thank god they just sat on their hands when the nation was lied to and taken into a make believe war...damn tyrants...trying to give people Health Insurance...those fuckers...
Your opinion doesn't matter. Please, in another thread, tell me why the war was unconstitutional, and I'll tell you why you are wrong.

Another thread though. I will disregard more mention of it here.

[Drachen]

I would think that leaving out that clause would be by design. If you try to enact all of the rest of the bill without the mandate portion, then the cost to taxpayers would spiral out of control. It is precisely the mandate which brings costs down across the board.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I could care less of the ruling on the madate being unconstitutional because that is what judge's are supposed to do. Is any one else worried that we have a judge using a campaign speech against a sitting President as a part of his ruling?

The concept of any judge using any candidate's campaign speeches deciding a case is alarming.




As Judge Vinson pointed out, congressional leaders consistently emphasized before the law's enactment that it was not a tax.

Really? Are judges going to start citing the pre legislative chatter as part of their decisions?

[fraga]

Your opinion doesn't matter. Please, in another thread, tell me why the war was unconstitutional, and I'll tell you why you are wrong.

Another thread though. I will disregard more mention of it here.

http://politiclolz.com/files/2009/09/20090909-You-Lie.jpg

[Spurminator]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11394374


"This is by any standard is a middle of the road, centrist legislation that builds on our existing system," Mr Altman says. "It must look awfully strange to people in other countries to see it be debated as though it's radical legislation."

[boutons_deux]

Vinson’s opinion:

Severability is a doctrine of judicial restraint, and the Supreme Court has applied and reaffirmed that doctrine just this past year: “‘Generally speaking, when confronting a constitutional flaw in a statute, [courts] try to limit the solution to the problem,’ severing any ‘problematic portions while leaving the remainder intact.’” [...]

The question of severability ultimately turns on the nature of the statute at issue. For example, if Congress intended a given statute to be viewed as a bundle of separate legislative enactment or a series of short laws, which for purposes of convenience and efficiency were arranged together in a single legislative scheme, it is presumed that any provision declared unconstitutional can be struck and severed without affecting the remainder of the statute. If, however, the statute is viewed as a carefully-balanced and clockwork-like statutory arrangement comprised of pieces that all work toward one primary legislative goal, and if that goal would be undermined if a central part of the legislation is found to be unconstitutional, then severability is not appropriate. As will be seen, the facts of this case lean heavily toward a finding that the Act is properly viewed as the latter, and not the former.

Family Research Council:

Severability is fundamentally a doctrine of judicial restraint. “Generally speaking, when confronting a constitutional flaw in a statute, we try to limit the solution to the problem.” [...]

The question of severability is a judicial inquiry of two alternatives regarding the nature of a statute. One possibility is that Congress intended a given statute as a bundle of separate legislative embodiments, which for the sake of convenience, avoiding redundancy, and contextual application, are bundled together in a single legislative enactment. This makes a statute a series of short laws, every one of which is designed to stand alone, if needs be. The second possibility is that a given statute embodies a carefully-balanced legislative deal, in which Congress weighs competing policy priorities, and through negotiations and deliberation crafts a package codifying this delicate balance. Congress is thus not voting for separate and discrete provisions. Instead, Congress is voting on a package as a whole, any modification of which could result in the bill failing to achieve passage in Congress. As both Plaintiffs‟ briefs and the following argument shows, the Individual Mandate falls within the latter category, not the former.

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/31/vinson-frc/

===============

Ruling against severability is overturning stare decisis and "incrementalism". aka, typical radical/extremist right-wing judges saying "fuck the law. I'm a political agent", which is just following the lead of the 5 SCOTUS radical/extremist right-wingers.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Vinson’s opinion:

Severability is a doctrine of judicial restraint, and the Supreme Court has applied and reaffirmed that doctrine just this past year: “‘Generally speaking, when confronting a constitutional flaw in a statute, [courts] try to limit the solution to the problem,’ severing any ‘problematic portions while leaving the remainder intact.’” [...]

The question of severability ultimately turns on the nature of the statute at issue. For example, if Congress intended a given statute to be viewed as a bundle of separate legislative enactment or a series of short laws, which for purposes of convenience and efficiency were arranged together in a single legislative scheme, it is presumed that any provision declared unconstitutional can be struck and severed without affecting the remainder of the statute. If, however, the statute is viewed as a carefully-balanced and clockwork-like statutory arrangement comprised of pieces that all work toward one primary legislative goal, and if that goal would be undermined if a central part of the legislation is found to be unconstitutional, then severability is not appropriate. As will be seen, the facts of this case lean heavily toward a finding that the Act is properly viewed as the latter, and not the former.

Family Research Council:

Severability is fundamentally a doctrine of judicial restraint. “Generally speaking, when confronting a constitutional flaw in a statute, we try to limit the solution to the problem.” [...]

The question of severability is a judicial inquiry of two alternatives regarding the nature of a statute. One possibility is that Congress intended a given statute as a bundle of separate legislative embodiments, which for the sake of convenience, avoiding redundancy, and contextual application, are bundled together in a single legislative enactment. This makes a statute a series of short laws, every one of which is designed to stand alone, if needs be. The second possibility is that a given statute embodies a carefully-balanced legislative deal, in which Congress weighs competing policy priorities, and through negotiations and deliberation crafts a package codifying this delicate balance. Congress is thus not voting for separate and discrete provisions. Instead, Congress is voting on a package as a whole, any modification of which could result in the bill failing to achieve passage in Congress. As both Plaintiffs‟ briefs and the following argument shows, the Individual Mandate falls within the latter category, not the former.

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/31/vinson-frc/

===============

Ruling against severability is overturning stare decisis and "incrementalism". aka, typical radical/extremist right-wing judges saying "fuck the law. I'm a political agent", which is just following the lead of the 5 SCOTUS radical/extremist right-wingers.

You're a dumbass, as usual. Severability must be included within the legislation, it is not explicit. The insurance industry and liberal lawmakers took out the severability clause from earlier versions of the draft law because without the individual mandate, Obamacare doesn't work. They need to spread the costs to the healthy and the young, or the whole thing implodes in a gigantic mountain of debt.

But keep getting butthurt about "radical right-wingers", it's what you do best.

[vy65]

You're a dumbass, as usual. Severability must be included within the legislation, it is not explicit. The insurance industry and liberal lawmakers took out the severability clause from earlier versions of the draft law because without the individual mandate, Obamacare doesn't work. They need to spread the costs to the healthy and the young, or the whole thing implodes in a gigantic mountain of debt.

But keep getting butthurt about "radical right-wingers", it's what you do best.

It's a canon of statutory interpretation, i.e., a guideline in how a court reads a statute where congress has not provided any guidence. It doesn't have to be included in the statute - in fact - the whole point of the doctrine is to provide court's with a method of dealing with a statute that doesn't include a severability section.

I'd suggest reading the shit posted and using your three brain cells to try thinking about this shit before getting all "butthurt" over being a "radical right-winger," dumbass ....

[Yonivore]

Yoni, could you also post the two federal judge decisions that upheld the law as constitutional? You know, to have a little contrast.

This is headed to the SCOTUS regardless...
Except they did not make the cogent constitutional argument as did this judge.

Also, the administration's yammerings notwithstanding, unless the government seeks, and is granted, a stay, the judges order effectively halts all Obamacare implementation. Anyone know if they've done so?

I'm not in the business of proposing, supporting, or forwarding argument with which I disagree. Feel free to talk up the other two judges rulings. I'd be particularly interested in how they square Obamacare's individual mandate with the constitution.

[Yonivore]

It's a canon of statutory interpretation, i.e., a guideline in how a court reads a statute where congress has not provided any guidence. It doesn't have to be included in the statute - in fact - the whole point of the doctrine is to provide court's with a method of dealing with a statute that doesn't include a severability section.

I'd suggest reading the shit posted and using your three brain cells to try thinking about this shit before getting all "butthurt" over being a "radical right-winger," dumbass ....
You're pretty cocky about something the judge specifically addressed in his ruling and for which he cited case law as his justification for not severing the mandate from the rest of the legislation.

Here's a pretty good piece in the Wall Street Journal, if you care to educate yourself a bit...

The Constitutional Moment (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703439504576116090813454296.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop)


Judge Vinson also went beyond the Virginia case in striking down the entire ObamaCare statute—paradoxically, an act of judicial modesty. Democrats intentionally left out a "severability" clause if one part of the bill was struck down, and the Administration repeatedly argued that the individual mandate was "essential" to the bill's goals and mechanisms and compared it to "a finely crafted watch." Judge Vinson writes that picking and choosing among thousands of sections would be "tantamount to rewriting a statute in an attempt to salvage it."

Or, you could read Judge Vinson's ruling in which he explains the principle and cites the case law behind throwing out the whole damnable law.


The lack of a severability clause in this case is significant because one had been included in an earlier version of the Act, but it was removed in the bill that subsequently became law. "Where Congress includes [particular] language in an earlier version of a bill but deletes it prior to enactment, it may be presumed that the [omitted provision] was not intended." Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23-24, 104 S. Ct. 296, 78 L. Ed. 2d 17 (1983). In other words, the severability lause was intentionally left out of the Act. The absence of a severability clause is further significant because the individual mandate was controversial all during the progress of the legislation and Congress was undoubtedly well aware that legal challenges were coming. Indeed, as noted earlier, even before the Act became law, several states had passed statutes declaring the individual mandate unconstitutional and purporting to exempt their residents from it; and Congress' own attorneys in the CRS had basically advised that the challenges might well have legal merit as it was "unclear" if the individual mandate had "solid constitutional foundation." See CRS Analysis, supra, at 3. In light of the foregoing, Congress' failure to include a severability clause in the Act (or, more accurately, its decision to not include one that had been included earlier) can be viewed as strong evidence that Congress recognized the Act could not operate as intended without the individual mandate.
...
Moreover, the defendants have conceded that the Act's health insurance reforms cannot survive without the individual mandate, which is extremely significant because the various insurance provisions, in turn, are the very heart of the Act itself.
So, bring it. Let's hear how the rulings of those other two judges is going to counter Judge Vinson; particularly when this comes before a right-leaning SCOTUS.

As the WSJ Article stated, "[Judge Vinson's] exhaustive and erudite opinion is an important moment for American liberty, and yesterday may well stand as the moment the political branches were obliged to return to the government of limited and enumerated powers that the framers envisioned."

That remains to be seen but, at the very least, his is a more constitutionally sound argument that whatever those other two judges slopped on paper.

[ChumpDumper]

That remains to be seen but, at the very least, his is a more constitutionally sound argument that whatever those other two judges slopped on paper.Did you read all of the opinions in their entirety to reach this conclusion?

I'm going to answer no for you.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Did you read all of the opinions in their entirety to reach this conclusion?

I'm going to answer no for you.

His blogger of the day didn't explain it to him so he is going to ingore the question.

[Yonivore]

His blogger of the day didn't explain it to him so he is going to ingore the question.
Easier to pick on me than rebut Judge Vinson? I'm cool with that.

[ChumpDumper]

Easier to whine than admit you didn't actually read the opinions? I'm cool with that.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Easier to pick on me than rebut Judge Vinson? I'm cool with that.

How did Vinson's opinion differ from the two judges who found the law constitutional?

Specifically.


You made the claim so I would assume you could back it up...

[DarkReign]

It's ok, we'll have universal coverage eventually and everyone will wonder what the hell the big deal was.

Probably the most likely outcome, in the end....whenever that is.

[ChumpDumper]

Probably the most likely outcome, in the end....whenever that is.Could be awhile, but I just tell conservatives that Israel has it -- and since they know Israel is infallible....

[DarrinS]

Could be awhile, but I just tell conservatives that Israel has it -- and since they know Israel is infallible....


Canadians love theirs. Just ask them.

[ElNono]

Except they did not make the cogent constitutional argument as did this judge.

Says who? You? :lol

The ultimate constitutional interpretation of the commerce clause and all that stuff will be ultimately done by the SCOTUS. States already knew this when they filed the lawsuit. This is merely part of the process.

[ElNono]

Canadians love theirs. Just ask them.

I have asked them, as I had family living there for a while. A lot of them do love it.

Did you ask them?

[Winehole23]

DarrinS flacks government by poll when it suits him.

[Winehole23]

When the results go his way, or DarrinS assumes they do, I should say.

[ChumpDumper]

Canadians love theirs. Just ask them.Someone did.


A new poll conducted by the Toronto-based Nanos Research points to overwhelming support — 86.2 percent — for strengthening public health care rather than expanding for-profit services.http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/august/new_poll_shows_canad.php

That was 2009. I'll look for something more recent.

If you have a poll showing they want to scrap public health care altogether, please post a link to it.

Thanks in advance.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Someone did.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/august/new_poll_shows_canad.php

That was 2009. I'll look for something more recent.

If you have a poll showing they want to scrap public health care altogether, please post a link to it.

Thanks in advance.

It's the will of the people!

[ChumpDumper]

Something newer:
Conducted for the Canadian Medical Association, the Ipsos Reid survey shows 68 per cent of respondents “reject the idea that the federal government’s focus on the economy justifies delaying discussions to renew the health accord with the provinces.” http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/its-not-the-economy-poll-says-its-health-care/article1882350/

Doesn't sound like they want to scrap the system, does it?

[Yonivore]

Says who? You? :lol

The ultimate constitutional interpretation of the commerce clause and all that stuff will be ultimately done by the SCOTUS. States already knew this when they filed the lawsuit. This is merely part of the process.
Has the government sought a stay of Judge Vinson's ruling or do they plan to just ignore him and proceed in contempt?

And, there's already an xtranormal video explaining the liberal side.

LgQUhDHP7UI

[ChumpDumper]

Has the government sought a stay of Judge Vinson's ruling or do they plan to just ignore him and proceed in contempt?You're an idiot.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Has the government sought a stay of Judge Vinson's ruling or do they plan to just ignore him and proceed in contempt?

And, there's already an xtranormal video explaining the liberal side.

Didn't Vinson address that?

He did, so why ask the stupid question?

[Yonivore]

How did Vinson's opinion differ from the two judges who found the law constitutional?

Specifically.


You made the claim so I would assume you could back it up...
Specifically, he found the federal government is prohibited from compelling a U. S. Citizen to purchase a commercial product and that if the Commerce Clause is construed to allow this, there is absolutely no limit to what the federal government could compel citizens to do.

Obviously, the two judges who found the law constitutional, disagreed. I'd like to hear how they squared the individual mandate with the Constitution. Frankly, I don't need to know their rationale to disagree and, since I'm not going to be in a courtroom arguing against their side, I don't feel like investing the time to read their rulings but, you're welcome to explain it if you can. Can you?

Can you explain how those two judges arrived at a position that says it is constitutional for the federal government to force me to buy a commercial product?

[ChumpDumper]

I'd like to hear how they squared the individual mandate with the Constitution.Well, you could, you know, read the rulings like you said you did.

[ElNono]

Has the government sought a stay of Judge Vinson's ruling or do they plan to just ignore him and proceed in contempt?

There's a process to this, which can take time.
The judge didn't order an immediate injunction, so the law can still be applied right now. At some point, the judge can submit a cease and desist order providing a time frame within which they must comply. If the Administration does not comply at that point, then the judge could issue an injunction and you'll get to the contempt of court part.

During that process, the Administration can request a stay to Judge Vinson, and, should the Judge decline, to the US District Court of Appeals, along with appealing the case.

Preparing the appeal will probably take some time, thus it makes no sense to file for a stay right away.


And, there's already an xtranormal video explaining the liberal side.

??? I don't know what you're talking about.
This is your standard case of interpretation of the constitution and the powers granted by it, with different opinions at the federal level, which is important enough to require the SCOTUS attention. It's obviously magnified because it affects every American.

[Yonivore]

Didn't Vinson address that?
Vinson's ruling effectively halted the implementation of Obamacare until an appear unless the Government files for and is granted a stay. So, no, he didn't address that. I was wondering if anyone knew if the Government had filed for a stay today?


He did, so why ask the stupid question?
And, I don't know why that's a stupid question. The administration was saying yesterday that implementation would continue "apace," but, without addressing the obvious stumbling block that to do so would be in contempt of Vinson's ruling.

[ElNono]

Can you explain how those two judges arrived at a position that says it is constitutional for the federal government to force me to buy a commercial product?

It's called interpretation, and it happens more often than what you think.
Thankfully we have an institution devoted to having the last word on it, called the SCOTUS, and this is where it's headed.

[Yonivore]

There's a process to this, which can take time.
The judge didn't order an immediate injunction, so the law can still be applied right now. At some point, the judge can submit a cease and desist order providing a time frame within which they must comply. If the Administration does not comply at that point, then the judge could issue an injunction and you'll get to the contempt of court part.
I think you're wrong on this. From what I understand, the injunction is unnecessary because the entire law has been ruled unconstitutional. And, unless the government seeks a stay of Judge Vinson's order, they must cease and desist immediately.


During that process, the Administration can request a stay to Judge Vinson, and, should the Judge decline, to the US District Court of Appeals, along with appealing the case.

Preparing the appeal will probably take some time, thus it makes no sense to file for a stay right away.
I hope they don't.


??? I don't know what you're talking about.
This is your standard case of interpretation of the constitution and the powers granted by it, with different opinions at the federal level, which is important enough to require the SCOTUS attention. It's obviously magnified because it affects every American.
Sorry, forgot the amusing YouTube. It's up now.

[Yonivore]

It's called interpretation, and it happens more often than what you think.

Thankfully we have an institution devoted to having the last word on it, called the SCOTUS, and this is where it's headed.
You're still not explaining their interpretation. Please, I'd like to hear it.

And, on staying Judge Vinson's ruling, he addressed that fairly definitively as well.


"...there is a long-standing presumption “that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.” See Comm. on Judiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers, 542 F.3d 909, 911 (D.C. Cir. 2008); accord Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 208 n.8 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (“declaratory judgment is, in a context such as this where federal officers are defendants, the practical equivalent of specific relief such as an injunction . . . since it must be presumed that federal officers will adhere to the law as declared by the court”) (Scalia, J.) (emphasis added).

There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here. Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is not necessary."
If the government is relying on advice from whomever appears to be informing your position on this matter, they'd better think again before Judge Vinson finds them in contempt.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Specifically, he found the federal government is prohibited from compelling a U. S. Citizen to purchase a commercial product and that if the Commerce Clause is construed to allow this, there is absolutely no limit to what the federal government could compel citizens to do.

Obviously, the two judges who found the law constitutional, disagreed. I'd like to hear how they squared the individual mandate with the Constitution. Frankly, I don't need to know their rationale to disagree and, since I'm not going to be in a courtroom arguing against their side, I don't feel like investing the time to read their rulings but, you're welcome to explain it if you can. Can you?

Can you explain how those two judges arrived at a position that says it is constitutional for the federal government to force me to buy a commercial product?

Vinson stated that he wasn't going to stay the law and that it was obvioulsy going to be decided by the SCOTUS

[DarrinS]

Someone did.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/august/new_poll_shows_canad.php

That was 2009. I'll look for something more recent.

If you have a poll showing they want to scrap public health care altogether, please post a link to it.

Thanks in advance.


No problem.

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/11/19/emergency-room-survey.html

[ElNono]

I think you're wrong on this. From what I understand, the injunction is unnecessary because the entire law has been ruled unconstitutional. And, unless the government seeks a stay of Judge Vinson's order, they must cease and desist immediately.

Nope. Declaring the law unconstitutional is a declaratory relief action, which means an injunction is unnecessary, and the States can stop complying with the law. The government, on the other hand, can keep forcing the States to comply in a variety of ways (by waving the other court rulings, denying funds, etc). If it gets to that, and the government didn't file a motion to stay, then the judge can file the cease and desist letter and the process described in my other post would commence.


I hope they don't.

You're not naive enough to think they're not going to appeal this, right?
I mean, the States already know the administration will. They already knew when they filed the lawsuit.

You need to keep in mind this will be a long process...

[DarrinS]

And here's an informal poll conducted by Paul Krugman

3EPd2i4Jshs

[ElNono]

No problem.

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/11/19/emergency-room-survey.html

Where does it says in that article that Canadians are displeased with their health system? :lol

That's an article about after-hours care. Did you read that before linking to it?

[ChumpDumper]

No problem.

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/11/19/emergency-room-survey.htmlSo you don't have a poll saying they want to scrap the public health care system.

Thanks.

[DarrinS]

Where does it says in that article that Canadians are displeased with their health system? :lol

That's an article about after-hours care. Did you read that before linking to it?



Canadians love waiting months to see a doctor. A poll proves it.

[ChumpDumper]

Where does it says in that article that Canadians are displeased with their health system? :lol

That's an article about after-hours care. Did you read that before linking to it?Also, it is possible to be displeased with a system without wanting to completely do away with it.

Binary Darrin fails on many levels here.

[Yonivore]

Nope. Declaring the law unconstitutional is a declaratory relief action, which means an injunction is unnecessary, and the States can stop complying with the law. The government, on the other hand, can keep forcing the States to comply in a variety of ways (by waving the other court rulings, denying funds, etc). If it gets to that, and the government didn't file a motion to stay, then the judge can file the cease and desist letter and the process described in my other post would commence.
So, you pretty much agree except that you believe the federal government should engage in mafia-type coercion to force States to continue implementing? Got it.


You're not naive enough to think they're not going to appeal this, right?
Not the appeal, but the stay. I think this government is stupid enough to think they can continue unabated by a ruling that nullifies the law under which they're operating.


I mean, the States already know the administration will. They already knew when they filed the lawsuit.

You need to keep in mind this will be a long process...
And, according to Judge Vinson, until it is settled, the government needs to stop implementation or seek a stay of his order.

[DarrinS]

Also, it is possible to be displeased with a system without wanting to completely do away with it.

Binary Darrin fails on many levels here.



Link the post where I said they want to scrap it.

[ElNono]

Canadians love waiting months to see a doctor. A poll proves it.

According to the article you just posted, they can see a doctor right away...

Again, did you read what you linked?

[ChumpDumper]

Link the post where I said they want to scrap it.You already linked the post where I asked for precisely that, then you said "No problem." and posted the article you apparently didn't read either.

[ChumpDumper]

Here's a nice example of the kind of improvements to their system Canadians might want:


A poll last year of 19,700 people in 11 industrialized countries, including Canada, found that the U.K. is the only country where wealth doesn't determine access to care.

Another 2010 Commonwealth Fund ranked the British system second of seven countries analyzed, behind only Holland, in terms of quality, efficiency, access to care, equity and healthy lives. On efficiency, the U.K. was No. 1. Canada ranked sixth overall in the survey, ahead only of the U.S.

Osborn said Britain's success is due to the reforms — and a huge infusion of cash — introduced after Tony Blair became prime minister in 1997.

They included national wait times targets, the establishment of star ratings for hospitals, the creation of a National Institute for Clinical Excellence, and the launch of a new auditing system.

"Most importantly, these were all pulled together as part of a coherent national policy and strategic vision that was implemented and sustained over 10 years, which in politics and in health policy, is a rare luxury."

The Labour government's move to allow greater private-sector involvement, harshly criticized by Canadian unions in the health sector at the time, didn't play a significant role in the success story, she said.

http://www.canada.com/health/Kindly+Canada+worse+health+care+than+says+expert/4137871/story.html#ixzz1Cjvo6BVw

But the UK is even worse! I read an anecdote somewhere!

[DarrinS]

What's all this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/international/americas/28canada.html

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/27/nation/na-healthcare-canada27

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574443253009607932.html

[Yonivore]

Vinson stated that he wasn't going to stay the law...
I haven't read where he stated that. In fact, I just posted the portion of his ruling that specifically says he doesn't have to enjoin the government from continuing to implement the law because, the whole damn thing is unconstitutional.

From everything I'm reading, the government must specifically seek a stay of Judge Vinson's order in order to continue implementing.


...and that it was obvioulsy going to be decided by the SCOTUS
I did read where he stated that.

[ChumpDumper]

What's all this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/international/americas/28canada.html

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/27/nation/na-healthcare-canada27

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574443253009607932.htmlAn ecdotes, for the most part.

Nothing about scrapping the system.

[ChumpDumper]

Again, the entire system would not have to be scrapped to end the horrors Darrin chronicled.


But the U.K. also allows parallel private insurance, now used by about 12 per cent of the population, as a "safety valve."

Insured people can use the insurance to avoid long waits for elective surgeries, to choose and quickly access specialists, and to go to private hospitals with more amenities.

"It's not controversial. The public accept it, and don't see it as a threat to the NHS. But they definitely would not let the government expand it to replace what they expect the NHS to cover."

http://www.canada.com/health/Kindly+Canada+worse+health+care+than+says+expert/4137871/story.html#ixzz1Cjyy3KJT

Now I've got to find British anecdotes! brb

[ElNono]

So, you pretty much agree except that you believe the federal government should engage in mafia-type coercion to force States to continue implementing? Got it.

What I believe has nothing to do with it. And I disagree it's mafia-type. Much to your chagrin, Judge Venson's ruling has no more weight than the ruling of other federal judges whose opinion is that the law is constitutional.
Unless the Judge forces the administration's hand with an actual injunction, the government can take it's time filing a motion of stay and an appeal.

I personally don't like this law or the mandate. I also didn't like the status quo prior to this law. Ultimately, it's irrelevant. The SCOTUS will rule, and all of us will go from there.


Not the appeal, but the stay. I think this government is stupid enough to think they can continue unabated by a ruling that nullifies the law under which they're operating.

I don't think you understand the ruling. The ruling didn't force to government to stop anything. That would require an injunction. The ruling merely granted the plaintiffs (the States) the ability to ignore the law. Should the government decide to force said States to comply, then the judge might be forced to issue an actual cease-and-desist/injunction/contempt of court ruling.


And, according to Judge Vinson, until it is settled, the government needs to stop implementation or seek a stay of his order.

Where does the judge's opinion says that?

Seeking a stay is the due course of action here, there's no doubt about it.
That said, you can file a motion to stay 'pending appeal', or you can file it as part of the appeal process. Considering that the judge didn't actually issue an injunction, the government has a modicum of time to prepare for the appeals process.

[ElNono]

What's all this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/international/americas/28canada.html

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/27/nation/na-healthcare-canada27

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574443253009607932.html

I would welcome a mixed system in the US too. I think it's great for everybody. If you have the money and want to go the private route, then by all means. I would even let you opt out of the public system as long as you can prove you're paying for a competitive private plan.

I still don't see where Canadians aren't loving their public system though...

[Yonivore]

Where does the judge's opinion says that?
Please note the judges words bolded and in red, below:

Professor Jacobsen, of Cornell Law, put it in layman's terms as such...


Federal Judge Roger Vinson of the Northern District of Florida, in a lawsuit by 26 state attorney generals, has held that Obamacare is unconstitutional. Judge Vinson first found that the mandate was unconstitutional, and then found that the mandate could not be severed from the rest of the law, requiring that the entire law be deemed unconstitutional.

Judge Vinson found that there was no need for an injunction, since the declaratory judgment that the entire law was invalid was sufficient. In effect, there is nothing left to enjoin, since no part of the law survived. By contrast, in the ruling in Virginia last year invalidating the mandate, the Judge severed the mandate from the rest of the law (but denied an injunction preventing the rest of the law from taking effect).

Here is the key language from the Order showing that Judge Vinson expects the federal government to obey the declaration that the law is unenforceable in its entirety:


"...there is a long-standing presumption “that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.” See Comm. on Judiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers, 542 F.3d 909, 911 (D.C. Cir. 2008); accord Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 208 n.8 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (“declaratory judgment is, in a context such as this where federal officers are defendants, the practical equivalent of specific relief such as an injunction . . . since it must be presumed that federal officers will adhere to the law as declared by the court”) (Scalia, J.) (emphasis added).

There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here. Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is not necessary."
In this sense, this decision is far more sweeping than the Virginia case, and presents a greater problem for the Obama administration which arguably does not have authority to implement any aspect of Obamacare.


Seeking a stay is the due course of action here, there's no doubt about it.

That said, you can file a motion to stay 'pending appeal', or you can file it as part of the appeal process. Considering that the judge didn't actually issue an injunction, the government has a modicum of time to prepare for the appeals process.
Obviously, from Judge Vinson's words, he felt an injunction was unnecessary since the law was deemed in his summary judgment to be invalid and inoperative.

I guess we'll see over the next few days.

[Yonivore]

By the way, I'm still curious of how you would explain the other two judge's ability to declare the individual mandate a constitutional concept.

[DarrinS]

I would welcome a mixed system in the US too. I think it's great for everybody. If you have the money and want to go the private route, then by all means. I would even let you opt out of the public system as long as you can prove you're paying for a competitive private plan.

I still don't see where Canadians aren't loving their public system though...


It's probably just the ones who know what they are missing, i.e. ones who have been to America.

[ElNono]

Please note the judges words bolded and in red, below:

Professor Jacobsen, of Cornell Law, put it in layman's terms as such...

The judge actually denied as unnecessary the requested injunction, since it's presumed that federal officials will adhere to his ruling. Quote from the opinion:


There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here. Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is not necessary.

Which means that the Judge has given the government the benefit of the doubt. Should the government push for compliance with the States, the judge then can issue an injunctive relief/contempt of court/etc.

I don't think it's going to get to that. I'm pretty sure we'll see a motion to stay and an appeal before that.


Obviously, from Judge Vinson's words, he felt an injunction was unnecessary since the law was deemed in his summary judgment to be invalid and inoperative.

I guess we'll see over the next few days.

Which is correct. We're not disagreeing in that. What you think is that the government needs to cease and desist right away, whereas in reality, there's some time that the government can take until filing the stay motion. Not in the order of magnitude of years. But it could take a week or two.

[ElNono]

By the way, I'm still curious of how you would explain the other two judge's ability to declare the individual mandate a constitutional concept.

What is there to explain? They're no different that Judge Vinson.
They interpret the law as they see it. It's not the first time judges disagree on interpretation. That's why there's an appeals process, decisions get reversed and remanded, and ultimately there's always the SCOTUS if they choose to hear a case.

[ElNono]

It's probably just the ones who know what they are missing, i.e. ones who have been to America.

Are you guessing? Or you asked some actual Canadians?

Did you ask those Canadians that can't afford to pay for healthcare in the US how they feel about their public system?

[Yonivore]

The judge actually denied as unnecessary the requested injunction, since it's presumed that federal officials will adhere to his ruling. Quote from the opinion:


There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here. Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is not necessary.

Which means that the Judge has given the government the benefit of the doubt. Should the government push for compliance with the States, the judge then can issue an injunctive relief/contempt of court/etc.
In effect, an injunction. So, we agree, the judge presumes the government is enjoined from further implementation of Obamacare without a stay of his ruling -- or, further, risking sanction by the court.


I don't think it's going to get to that. I'm pretty sure we'll see a motion to stay and an appeal before that.
It'll get there if the government moves ahead with implementation.


Which is correct. We're not disagreeing in that. What you think is that the government needs to cease and desist right away, whereas in reality, there's some time that the government can take until filing the stay motion. Not in the order of magnitude of years. But it could take a week or two.
I think Professor Jacobsen disagrees with you. What is it you think the government can continue until then?

[ElNono]

In effect, an injunction. So, we agree, the judge presumes the government is enjoined from further implementation of Obamacare without a stay of his ruling -- or, further, risking sanction by the court.

The effect of an injunction would be immediate, and that's the difference, as I understand it, between an actual injunctive relief vs a declaratory relief. The lack of an actual injunction gives the government some time.


It'll get there if the government moves ahead with implementation.

Yes and no. Don't forget that the ruling of other judges as far as declaring the law constitutional clash directly with Vinson's opinion. Ultimately, it's a shitty position to be in for the States. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


I think Professor Jacobsen disagrees with you. What is it you think the government can continue until then?

Everything, really. It's the States that are allowed to ignore the law.
As long as the Judge doesn't formally request to cease and desist (which would invalidate the benefit of the doubt he gave the government), or the government files a motion to stay, the government isn't compelled to stop doing anything.

[ElNono]

BTW, the States also have the option to request Injunctive relief anew if they sense the government is not going to comply with the court's decision.

[George Gervin's Afro]

By the way, I'm still curious of how you would explain the other two judge's ability to declare the individual mandate a constitutional concept.

Why don't you read them

[Yonivore]

Why don't you read them
Haven't you an understanding of how they arrived at that conclusion?

Frankly, it's not of that much interest to me. I'm satisfied with Judge Vinson's ruling and, quite frankly; I think it behooves those, in here, arguing there are two judges that say Obamacare is constitutional, to explain how they managed that seemingly [to me] impossible feat. If you can't, that's fine with me.

I don't care to wade through their rulings in an effort to find that. If you want to argue their rulings merit consideration, I think you should be prepared to argue why.

I've recounted all the relevant passages from Judge Vinson's ruling. You don't have to wonder how he finds the individual mandate both unconstitutional and unseverable.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Haven't you an understanding of how they arrived at that conclusion?

Frankly, it's not of that much interest to me. I'm satisfied with Judge Vinson's ruling and, quite frankly; I think it behooves those, in here, arguing there are two judges that say Obamacare is constitutional, to explain how they managed that seemingly [to me] impossible feat. If you can't, that's fine with me.

I don't care to wade through their rulings in an effort to find that. If you want to argue their rulings merit consideration, I think you should be prepared to argue why.

I've recounted all the relevant passages from Judge Vinson's ruling. You don't have to wonder how he finds the individual mandate both unconstitutional and unseverable.

So to sum it up, a judge agrees with your side therefore you stop at that point and arent' concerned with any other view point. I suggest you stop asking other people to do your work for you..

[Yonivore]

So to sum it up, a judge agrees with your side therefore you stop at that point and arent' concerned with any other view point. I suggest you stop asking other people to do your work for you..

So, you don't know how those two judges managed to make Obamacare constitutional.

[George Gervin's Afro]

So, you don't know how those two judges managed to make Obamacare constitutional.

I do and I'm not going to do your work for you. If you truly were interested you would read them..

[Yonivore]

The effect of an injunction would be immediate, and that's the difference, as I understand it, between an actual injunctive relief vs a declaratory relief. The lack of an actual injunction gives the government some time.

Yes and no. Don't forget that the ruling of other judges as far as declaring the law constitutional clash directly with Vinson's opinion. Ultimately, it's a shitty position to be in for the States. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Everything, really. It's the States that are allowed to ignore the law.
As long as the Judge doesn't formally request to cease and desist (which would invalidate the benefit of the doubt he gave the government), or the government files a motion to stay, the government isn't compelled to stop doing anything.
All this to say the judge expects them to cease and desist by presuming they will adhere to the prior actions of government in such cases; and, that if they don't, he can then issue an injunction and find them in contempt?

So, he's effectively (as he said) enjoined them from proceeding with Obamacare.

You sure used a lot of words in order to come to the same conclusion.

[Yonivore]

I do and I'm not going to do your work for you. If you truly were interested you would read them..
I'm interested in how El Nono (and you if you care to) sees their ruling as being consistent with the Constitution.

I don't work in here. If you want to argue their rulings counter Judge Vinson's, I think you should at least be willing to say how. It's okay if you can't. I understand.

[George Gervin's Afro]

On a side note Yoni most of the people who consider themselves as intelligent will review all sides of an issue before rendering an opinion. An informed person is just that. You choose to stop at the first instance when you stumble upon something that supports your position. You are not an informed person which renders your opinions weak and lazy.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I'm interested in how El Nono (and you if you care to) sees their ruling as being consistent with the Constitution.

I don't work in here. If you want to argue their rulings counter Judge Vinson's, I think you should at least be willing to say how. It's okay if you can't. I understand.

I think you could at least admit that you don't care what they said because you are satisfied that one of four judges made a ruling that fits your world view..

You're lazy

[Yonivore]

I think you could at least admit that you don't care what they said because you are satisfied that one of four judges made a ruling that fits your world view..
I don't understand your reticence to counter Judge Vinson's rationale with that of the two judges being generally referred to as having found Obamacare constitutional.

In the preceding posts, I have posted relevant portions of Judge Vinson's ruling that support his (not my) opinion that Obamacare is unconstitutional and inoperative. I've also posted the opinion of a Cornell Law Professor (not that carries any more weight than the opinions of some professor for another law school that agrees with your position but, at least I have).

You've done nothing but counter with insisting I read and discern, for myself, how two other judges managed to do what seems, from reading Judge Vinson's ruling, illogical.


You're lazy
You realize the other two judges did not support their findings as clearly and has Judge Vinson and, in fact, are completely undermined by his ruling.

[Yonivore]

On a side note Yoni most of the people who consider themselves as intelligent will review all sides of an issue before rendering an opinion. An informed person is just that. You choose to stop at the first instance when you stumble upon something that supports your position. You are not an informed person which renders your opinions weak and lazy.
And, if I were rendering my opinion, you'd have a point. I was merely repeating the opinion of Judge Vinson and a law professor who has much more of an ability to understand the ruling that do you or I.

Okay, so forget your two judges. Where's the flaw in Judge Vinson's understanding and citation of the constitution and relevant case law leading him to his conclusion?

[Yonivore]

So, from what I'm reading, the two judges, Judge George Steeh and Judge Jude Moon, both found the government had authority to construe the Commerce Clause to compel U. S. Citizens to buy a commercial product.

That's novel and -- unlike the articles I used -- did not quote the relevant law or cases that supported their finding. I'm still looking for the actual rulings to see if the judges did, in fact, rely on any precedence in deciding this.

[RandomGuy]

On a side note Yoni most of the people who consider themselves as intelligent will review all sides of an issue before rendering an opinion. An informed person is just that. You choose to stop at the first instance when you stumble upon something that supports your position. You are not an informed person which renders your opinions weak and lazy.

I would agree.

I have actually met an occasional informed conservative, but most tend to substitute confirmation bias and unflagging trust in Fox "news" for common sense bullshit filters. They then wonder why, when they go charging off to show "them damn liberal commie traitor fags" a thing or two in internet forums, they get their asses handed to them on a regular basis.

It's like bringing a wet noodle to a knife fight.

[ChumpDumper]

It's probably just the ones who know what they are missing, i.e. ones who have been to America.:lol You are such an ankle biter.

Sorry reality doesn't fit your world view.

[DarrinS]

:lol You are such an ankle-biter.


:lol You are such a DarrinS nut-hugger

[ChumpDumper]

:lol You are such a DarrinS nut-huggerQuite the contrary. You just get pissy when you get called out.

It's cruel of me, I know, but you're such an angry pussy it's fun to do.

[DarrinS]

Quite the contrary. You just get pissy when you get called out.

It's cruel of me, I know, but you're such an angry pussy it's fun to do.

:lol You're a nut-hugger and a name-caller.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol You're a nut-hugger and a name-caller.:lol You just called me a name and you are hanging on my every word here. you sprang back into the thread once I got back from work. :tu

[Yonivore]

Also from Judge Vinson:


“It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place.”

And, now that I've perused the two rulings from courts that held Obamacare constitutional, I still believe Judge Vinson has the best constitutional argument. They both declare the government has the authority to regulate commerce, under the clause by that name, but, neither answers the question of why not engaging in commerce is an activity that falls under the jurisdiction. They just say it does and, therefore, presto, whammo, it's cool.

Also, both suits were rather limited in their impacts and both judges seemed to concede the whole matter was above their pay grade. Not very convincing, if you ask me.

Plus, I don't feel any more intelligent after having read them.

[Yonivore]

I would agree.

I have actually met an occasional informed conservative, but most tend to substitute confirmation bias and unflagging trust in Fox "news" for common sense bullshit filters. They then wonder why, when they go charging off to show "them damn liberal commie traitor fags" a thing or two in internet forums, they get their asses handed to them on a regular basis.

It's like bringing a wet noodle to a knife fight.
I've yet to meet an informed liberal. Period.

So, you give it a try, RG. Why are the two liberal judges right and Vinson wrong?

[ChumpDumper]

I've yet to meet an informed liberal. Period.I knew there was a reason you were more irritable today.

[DarrinS]

I knew there was a reason you were more irritable today.

BxuCeHUxoBY

[ElNono]

All this to say the judge expects them to cease and desist by presuming they will adhere to the prior actions of government in such cases; and, that if they don't, he can then issue an injunction and find them in contempt?

So, he's effectively (as he said) enjoined them from proceeding with Obamacare.

You sure used a lot of words in order to come to the same conclusion.

I would use less words if you even pretend to understand what I've been trying to tell you for a few pages now. You keep arguing that the government must cease right now, and that's simply not the case. They have time to prepare an appeal and a motion to stay to go with it. During that time, and as long as the judge doesn't actually issue an injunction, they can still continue pushing to implement the law.

[ElNono]

I'm interested in how El Nono (and you if you care to) sees their ruling as being consistent with the Constitution.

I don't work in here. If you want to argue their rulings counter Judge Vinson's, I think you should at least be willing to say how. It's okay if you can't. I understand.

Did you read their opinions? That you agree with Judge Vinson ruling doesn't automatically mean that the interpretation from other judges just-as-qualified is somehow wrong or incoherent. As I said earlier, differing interpretations happen all the time, be it as part of the appeals process, or even after reaching the SCOTUS.

It's fine with me that your confirmation bias made you read and research thoroughly this specific ruling. I personally like to read certain rulings on a general basis, just to be informed. I really haven't tracked this case too much because I understand that all this stuff is fairly premature and that the final goal is to either force Congress to modify the law in a way where it's still workable without a mandate, or have a decision about it by the SCOTUS.

[Yonivore]

I would use less words if you even pretend to understand what I've been trying to tell you for a few pages now. You keep arguing that the government must cease right now, and that's simply not the case. They have time to prepare an appeal and a motion to stay to go with it. During that time, and as long as the judge doesn't actually issue an injunction, they can still continue pushing to implement the law.

"...the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction."
What part of that sentence do you not understand? Judge obviously believes his ruling is an injunction because, since none of the law survived his finding, there is nothing to enjoin.

That's not my opinion either. My position is informed by Professor William Jacobsen of Cornell Law [and a few others that I found while reading up on this ruling].

I'm not arguing they can't be wrong but, you've yet to provide me with the source that is informing your position that the government can just continue? And, if you're not a similarly credentialed law school professor, you'll excuse me if I don't give your opinion as much weight as that of people who study this shit for a living.

[ElNono]

So, you give it a try, RG. Why are the two liberal judges right and Vinson wrong?

There's actually two rulings opposing and two rulings approving. It's not just Vinson against the world. And all 4 could be partially right or partially wrong. That's why this is headed to the SCOTUS.

[Yonivore]

There's actually two rulings opposing and two rulings approving. It's not just Vinson against the world. And all 4 could be partially right or partially wrong. That's why this is headed to the SCOTUS.
That's another thing. It's four separate cases on four separate questions. I suspect the Florida case is the one that makes it to SCOTUS.

[ElNono]

What part of that sentence do you not understand? Judge obviously believes his ruling is an injunction because, since none of the law survived his finding, there is nothing to enjoin.

You're taking that out of context. "the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction" just as long as the government decides to abide by the judge's ruling, which the judge believes they'll do.

If the judge wanted to hand out an actual injunction, he would have done so.


That's not my opinion either. My position is informed by Professor William Jacobsen of Cornell Law [and a few others that I found while reading up on this ruling].

I'm not arguing they can't be wrong but, you've yet to provide me with the source that is informing your position that the government can just continue? And, if you're not a similarly credentialed law school professor, you'll excuse me if I don't give your opinion as much weight as that of people who study this shit for a living.

I don't think they're wrong. I read some of those articles, and unlike you, they understand that there's still time for the administration to file an appeal and a motion to stay, before the judge actually rules the administration under contempt of court or actually issues an injunction.

[Yonivore]

Here's a resource you might find informative.

Health Care Lawsuits (http://healthcarelawsuits.org/allcases.php)

[ElNono]

That's another thing. It's four separate cases on four separate questions. I suspect the Florida case is the one that makes it to SCOTUS.

Cases could be merged. This is also going to the court of appeals before it will reach the SCOTUS. There's a long way to go in this process.

[ElNono]

Here's a resource you might find informative.

Health Care Lawsuits (http://healthcarelawsuits.org/allcases.php)

Thank you, although I'm pretty sure it's early to waste time on this. Cases are going to the court of appeals. Some might be sent back to lower courts. Eventually, they'll reach the SCOTUS, and I'll probably read up on it then. The cases could look fairly different then.

[Yonivore]

You're taking that out of context. "the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction" just as long as the government decides to abide by the judge's ruling, which the judge believes they'll do.

If the judge wanted to hand out an actual injunction, he would have done so.
Fuck, you're dense...






"...there is a long-standing presumption “that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.” See Comm. on Judiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers, 542 F.3d 909, 911 (D.C. Cir. 2008); accord Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 208 n.8 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (“declaratory judgment is, in a context such as this where federal officers are defendants, the practical equivalent of specific relief such as an injunction . . . since it must be presumed that federal officers will adhere to the law as declared by the court”) (Scalia, J.) (emphasis added).

There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here. Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is not necessary."
There is no question in my mind or that of Professor Jacobsen that Judge Vinson believes his ruling is a fucking injunction and that the government has been functionally enjoined from continuing to implement Obamacare because, as he says, the Obama administration would be stupid to continue in the face of a long-standing presumption that the court's order is as good as an injunction.


I don't think they're wrong. I read some of those articles, and unlike you, they understand that there's still time for the administration to file an appeal and a motion to stay, before the judge actually rules the administration under contempt of court or actually issues an injunction.
So, show me a legal resource that says they are free to continue implementing.

[Yonivore]

Thank you, although I'm pretty sure it's early to waste time on this. Cases are going to the court of appeals. Some might be sent back to lower courts. Eventually, they'll reach the SCOTUS, and I'll probably read up on it then. The cases could look fairly different then.
I'll bet only one makes it to SCOTUS and that'll be the one that best poses the question of whether or not the individual mandate is constitutional and if it is severable from the remainder of the law.

I think the Florida case is that case.

[ElNono]

There is no question in my mind or that of Professor Jacobsen that Judge Vinson believes his ruling is a fucking injunction and that the government has been functionally enjoined from continuing to implement Obamacare because, as he says, the Obama administration would be stupid to continue in the face of a long-standing presumption that the court's order is as good as an injunction.

Professor Jacobsen has an opinion over the ruling. That's fine, and I agree there will be consequences if the government takes too long or doesn't file a motion to stay or an appeal (or halts implementation). I think we all agree on that. I don't see where Jacobsen mentions that it has to stop right now though.

Tell me, why didn't the judge actually issue an injunction right now? Have you seen any announcement that Obamacare's implementation is being stopped? Why do you think Judge Vinson hasn't issued a contempt of court or an actual injunction yet?


So, show me a legal resource that says they are free to continue implementing.

http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/News/Docs/09714485866.pdf
http://www.vawd.uscourts.gov/OPINIONS/MOON/LIBERTYUNIVERSITYVGEITHNER.PDF

Unfortunately for you and Professor Jacobsen, these opinions have as much authority as Judge Vinson's ruling.

[ElNono]

I'll bet only one makes it to SCOTUS and that'll be the one that best poses the question of whether or not the individual mandate is constitutional and if it is severable from the remainder of the law.

I think the Florida case is that case.

I think all the cases surround the same topic: the commerce clause and the powers granted by it. Will be an interesting case to follow once it gets there.

[Yonivore]

Professor Jacobsen has an opinion over the ruling. That's fine, and I agree there will be consequences if the government takes too long or doesn't file a motion to stay or an appeal (or halts implementation). I think we all agree on that. I don't see where Jacobsen mentions that it has to stop right now though.
I think the whole "declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction" thing is where it is said.


Tell me, why didn't the judge actually issue an injunction right now?
He said it wasn't necessary because his declaratory judgment achieved the same thing.


Have you seen any announcement that Obamacare's implementation is being stopped? Why do you think Judge Vinson hasn't issued a contempt of court or an actual injunction yet?
I also haven't seen anything where States are continuing to implement, either. The judge didn't order them to declare they were stopping, he just ruled it was unconstitutional to continue and that his order was the functional equivalent of an injunction.

I suspect if it comes to the court's attention that Obamacare implementation has continued on a level that indicates defiance of his order, the government will hear about it.


http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/News/Docs/09714485866.pdf
http://www.vawd.uscourts.gov/OPINIONS/MOON/LIBERTYUNIVERSITYVGEITHNER.PDF

Unfortunately for you and Professor Jacobsen, these opinions have as much authority as Judge Vinson's ruling.
Actually, they don't. No one is enjoined from any activity in those rulings. The cases were merely dismissed on to appeal.

[ElNono]

I think the whole "declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction" thing is where it is said.

He said it wasn't necessary because his declaratory judgment achieved the same thing.

He said it would achieve the same thing "with the presumption" that the government would comply with his ruling.

Now, the government hasn't announced they stopped anything. As a matter of fact, they stated otherwise. Why haven't the judge issued a new injunctive relief yet?


I also haven't seen anything where States are continuing to implement, either. The judge didn't order them to declare they were stopping, he just ruled it was unconstitutional to continue and that his order was the functional equivalent of an injunction.

I suspect if it comes to the court's attention that Obamacare implementation has continued on a level that indicates defiance of his order, the government will hear about it.

From here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/31/AR2011013103804.html?hpid=topnews):

David Rivkin, a conservative lawyer in Washington who represents the plaintiffs, said that the 26 states that are party to the lawsuit are no longer subject to any of the law's requirements - unless the federal government obtains a stay of Vinson's order from an appeals court. White House officials firmly rejected that view. "Implementation will proceed apace," one senior White House official said in a background briefing for reporters.

So, why hasn't the judge issued an injunction yet?

I'm sure that if in a week or two we keep hearing this stuff and there's no stay motion filed, the Judge will renounce to the presumption it had, and compel the government to comply. You might not like it, but this entire procedural system takes time.


Actually, they don't. No one is enjoined from any activity in those rulings. The cases were merely dismissed on to appeal.

You asked for legal opinion that enabled the administration to continue with Obamacare. I provided what you asked. They're basically rulings on the same topic, and the persons that issued those rulings have as much weight as Judge Vinson.

[Yonivore]

He said it would achieve the same thing "with the presumption" that the government would comply with his ruling.

Now, the government hasn't announced they stopped anything. As a matter of fact, they stated otherwise. Why haven't the judge issued a new injunctive relief yet?
Because saying it and doing it are two different things.


From here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/31/AR2011013103804.html?hpid=topnews):

David Rivkin, a conservative lawyer in Washington who represents the plaintiffs, said that the 26 states that are party to the lawsuit are no longer subject to any of the law's requirements - unless the federal government obtains a stay of Vinson's order from an appeals court. White House officials firmly rejected that view. "Implementation will proceed apace," one senior White House official said in a background briefing for reporters.

So, why hasn't the judge issued an injunction yet?
Have the States said that Obamacare implementation has proceeded apace? I suspect one of the 26 states will notify the courts if they're approached by the federal government in that respect.


I'm sure that if in a week or two we keep hearing this stuff and there's no stay motion filed, the Judge will renounce to the presumption it had, and compel the government to comply. You might not like it, but this entire procedural system takes time.
And, if Obamacare is dead in the water that whole time, I'm cool with that.


You asked for legal opinion that enabled the administration to continue with Obamacare. I provided what you asked. They're basically rulings on the same topic, and the persons that issued those rulings have as much weight as Judge Vinson.
No, they don't and you won't find a legal scholar anywhere that says either of those cases have any bearing on Vinson's ruling. And, I didn't ask for a link to the court's ruling. Show me a legal opinion that says those ruling do what you assert.

[ElNono]

Because saying it and doing it are two different things.

The government never said it was going to comply. As a matter of fact, they've said they're going to appeal the decision. Thus the presumption from the Judge is, at least, misguided.


Have the States said that Obamacare implementation has proceeded apace? I suspect one of the 26 states will notify the courts if they're approached by the federal government in that respect.

States are in a very shitty position right now. This uncertainty certainly is a problem. Especially when they get messages like this (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20030146-503544.html):

The White House officials said that the ruling would not have an impact on implementation of the law, which is being phased in gradually. (The individual mandate, for example, does not begin until 2014.) They said that states cannot use the ruling as a basis to delay implementation in part because the ruling does not rest on "anything like a conventional Constitutional analysis." Twenty-six states were involved in the lawsuit.


And, if Obamacare is dead in the water that whole time, I'm cool with that.

Well, the States are on a bind. If they stop and then the law is proven to be constitutional, then they could have to catch up in a hurry. If they don't stop, they could be wasting money if it's found unconstitutional.


No, they don't and you won't find a legal scholar anywhere that says either of those cases have any bearing on Vinson's ruling. And, I didn't ask for a link to the court's ruling. Show me a legal opinion that says those ruling do what you assert.

What do you think court rulings are, if not legal opinion?
They have the exact same authority as Judge Vinson's ruling as far as giving the administration a green light to continue implementing. Like I said, the problem here is for the States. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

And Vinson's ruling has received it's critique too if you bothered to look (which I don't think you have):

http://volokh.com/2011/01/31/the-weak-link-in-judge-vinsons-opinion-striking-down-the-mandate/

Orin S. Kerr is a professor of law at the George Washington University Law School

[Yonivore]

The government never said it was going to comply. As a matter of fact, they've said they're going to appeal the decision. Thus the presumption from the Judge is, at least, misguided.



States are in a very shitty position right now. This uncertainty certainly is a problem. Especially when they get messages like this (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20030146-503544.html):

The White House officials said that the ruling would not have an impact on implementation of the law, which is being phased in gradually. (The individual mandate, for example, does not begin until 2014.) They said that states cannot use the ruling as a basis to delay implementation in part because the ruling does not rest on "anything like a conventional Constitutional analysis." Twenty-six states were involved in the lawsuit.



Well, the States are on a bind. If they stop and then the law is proven to be constitutional, then they could have to catch up in a hurry. If they don't stop, they could be wasting money if it's found unconstitutional.



What do you think court rulings are, if not legal opinion?
They have the exact same authority as Judge Vinson's ruling as far as giving the administration a green light to continue implementing. Like I said, the problem here is for the States. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

And Vinson's ruling has received it's critique too if you bothered to look (which I don't think you have):

http://volokh.com/2011/01/31/the-weak-link-in-judge-vinsons-opinion-striking-down-the-mandate/

Orin S. Kerr is a professor of law at the George Washington University Law School

Now read Ilya Somin's refutation of Kerr's position...at the same website. Look, we disagree. We'll see who's right in the coming days as States either continue setting up the structure of Obamacare or, when 26 of them, relying on Vinson's ruling, put on the brakes.

[ElNono]

Now read Ilya Somin's refutation of Kerr's position...at the same website. Look, we disagree. We'll see who's right in the coming days as States either continue setting up the structure of Obamacare or, when 26 of them, relying on Vinson's ruling, put on the brakes.

I've read Ilya's take too, and as all the other opinions, they're just that, opinion. Even the district judge's opinions are just that, and subject to appeal.
We have an institution that handles the last word on opinions, and that's the SCOTUS. That's exactly why I don't see this ruling as anything different from the other ones. They're all headed the same way.

[ElNono]

BTW, here's a somewhat better explanation of what I was trying to tell you:

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/82547/injunction-junction-whether-vinsons-decision-blocks-the-law

On the injunction question, it’s complicated, but it’s also kind of stupid, because in the end of course the government is going to be able to continue implementing the law.

I gather from the press accounts that [Vinson] entered a declaratory judgment—a declaration that the law is unconstitutional--not an injunction. If you don’t comply with an injunction, you’re in contempt of court. By contrast, you can “violate” a declaratory judgment with impunity. But in practice parties do not defy DJs. The reason is that, once a DJ had been entered, the person who got it can go back to court and get an injunction automatically, on the basis of the DJ. A DJ is often used against the government, because the court does not want to suggest that the government has to be threatened with contempt. The idea is: I (judge) know that you (government official) will comply once I tell you what the law is; I don’t have to order you to comply.

If he had entered an injunction, the US would immediately have sought a “stay pending appeal.” That means the injunction can’t be enforced while the case is on appeal. The US would seek the stay from him; if he denied it, from the 11th Circuit; if the 11th Circuit denied it—which would be inconceivable, in this case, in my view--from the S. Ct. Technically, a DJ does not have to be stayed, because it doesn’t require the US to do anything. But my guess is that the US will seek a stay anyway, just to make things clear. There is a risk that if the US seeks a stay, and the court of appeals says “we’re not granting a stay, because you don’t need it, since this is only a DJ” then that will be portrayed as a loss for the US. Vinson’s little maneuver—I’ll enter a DJ, and I’ll suggest you have to comply right away, but I won’t make it an injunction—is just jerkiness, designed to put the government in an awkward position without Vinson’s owning up to what he’s doing.

[Yonivore]

I've read Ilya's take too, and as all the other opinions, they're just that, opinion. Even the district judge's opinions are just that, and subject to appeal.
We have an institution that handles the last word on opinions, and that's the SCOTUS. That's exactly why I don't see this ruling as anything different from the other ones. They're all headed the same way.
I don't necessarily disagree. However, the question of the day is whether or not the federal government is, in any way, restricted from continuing to implement the provisions of Obamacare.

On that we disagree and you've yet to present a compelling argument to the contrary.

At first you tried to tell me Judge Vinson's order didn't mean injunction; that I was wrong. Then, when you apparently became convinced that I wasn't wrong about that, you started saying Vinson was wrong.

Okay, that's all well and good but, there are greater legal minds than yours and mine that also disagree on that very question. As I said, we'll see how it plays out over the next couple of days and weeks.

[ElNono]

I don't necessarily disagree. However, the question of the day is whether or not the federal government is, in any way, restricted from continuing to implement the provisions of Obamacare.

On that we disagree and you've yet to present a compelling argument to the contrary.

At first you tried to tell me Judge Vinson's order didn't mean injunction; that I was wrong. Then, when you apparently became convinced that I wasn't wrong about that, you started saying Vinson was wrong.

It isn't an injunction. Even if the judge 'presumes it should act as one', it isn't one. He could have issued an injunction if he wanted to do that.
Read what I posted above.


Okay, that's all well and good but, there are greater legal minds than yours and mine that also disagree on that very question. As I said, we'll see how it plays out over the next couple of days and weeks.

I don't disagree we'll see how it plays out. I'm pretty sure this is going straight to the SCOTUS.

[Yonivore]

BTW, here's a somewhat better explanation of what I was trying to tell you:

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/82547/injunction-junction-whether-vinsons-decision-blocks-the-law

On the injunction question, it’s complicated, but it’s also kind of stupid, because in the end of course the government is going to be able to continue implementing the law.

I gather from the press accounts that [Vinson] entered a declaratory judgment—a declaration that the law is unconstitutional--not an injunction. If you don’t comply with an injunction, you’re in contempt of court. By contrast, you can “violate” a declaratory judgment with impunity. But in practice parties do not defy DJs. The reason is that, once a DJ had been entered, the person who got it can go back to court and get an injunction automatically, on the basis of the DJ. A DJ is often used against the government, because the court does not want to suggest that the government has to be threatened with contempt. The idea is: I (judge) know that you (government official) will comply once I tell you what the law is; I don’t have to order you to comply.

If he had entered an injunction, the US would immediately have sought a “stay pending appeal.” That means the injunction can’t be enforced while the case is on appeal. The US would seek the stay from him; if he denied it, from the 11th Circuit; if the 11th Circuit denied it—which would be inconceivable, in this case, in my view--from the S. Ct. Technically, a DJ does not have to be stayed, because it doesn’t require the US to do anything. But my guess is that the US will seek a stay anyway, just to make things clear. There is a risk that if the US seeks a stay, and the court of appeals says “we’re not granting a stay, because you don’t need it, since this is only a DJ” then that will be portrayed as a loss for the US. Vinson’s little maneuver—I’ll enter a DJ, and I’ll suggest you have to comply right away, but I won’t make it an injunction—is just jerkiness, designed to put the government in an awkward position without Vinson’s owning up to what he’s doing.
So, as Judge Vinson said, his declaratory judgment was the functional equivalent of an injunction.

If the government proceeds "apace," the defendants will probably get an injunction without delay and, then, the government will seek a stay that's not guaranteed.

Sounds to me like the feds are in the crack, not the states.

Glad we agree.

[ElNono]

So, as Judge Vinson said, his declaratory judgment was the functional equivalent of an injunction.

It was basically maneuvering. As I stated, the government is not compelled to do anything since it's not an actual injunction.


If the government proceeds "apace," the defendants will probably get an injunction without delay and, then, the government will seek a stay that's not guaranteed.

Actually, if the States seek an injunction without delay, then the government has a reason to seek the stay on said injunction. Right now, they don't have a reason to seek such stay, since there's no actual injunction in place.

I still think the government might seek a stay to clarify the situation.

So, basically, it's exactly what I've been trying to tell you from page 3 onwards.

[Yonivore]

It isn't an injunction. Even if the judge 'presumes it should act as one', it isn't one. He could have issued an injunction if he wanted to do that.
Read what I posted above.
I did. What your information and Judge Vinson said are fundamentally the same. Injunctions aren't usually required in cases that involve government as the defendant because it is presumed the government defendants aren't going to go against the finding of the court.


I don't disagree we'll see how it plays out. I'm pretty sure this is going straight to the SCOTUS.
That, we will.

[ElNono]

I did. What your information and Judge Vinson said are fundamentally the same. Injunctions aren't usually required in cases that involve government as the defendant because it is presumed the government defendants aren't going to go against the finding of the court.


The judge presumed that. It's not a law. If he wanted to order an injunction, he was within his rights to do so. He didn't.

And a stay is not required if there's no injunction in place. Thus, the government is free to continue doing what they do.

[Yonivore]

The judge presumed that. It's not a law. If he wanted to order an injunction, he was within his rights to do so. He didn't.

And a stay is not required if there's no injunction in place. Thus, the government is free to continue doing what they do.
I, Judge Vinson, Ilya Somin, Professor Jacobsen, and the 26 plaintiff states disagree with you, the anonymous staffer Obama paraded out to the media, and Orin Kerr (although I'm not sure Orin disagrees with Vinson on the constitutionality of Obamacare as much as he does on Vinson's rationale over the relevance of his ruling on the Commerce Clause).

So, we shall see, eh?

I will predict, however, that the individual mandate does not survive SCOTUS. It's a toss up as to whether or not, they will sever it and leave any of the rest of the law intact. Hell, even Obama has waffled on that issue.

[ElNono]

I, Judge Vinson, Ilya Somin, Professor Jacobsen, and the 26 plaintiff states disagree with you, the anonymous staffer Obama paraded out to the media, and Orin Kerr (although I'm not sure Orin disagrees with Vinson on the constitutionality of Obamacare as much as he does on Vinson's rationale over the relevance of his ruling on the Commerce Clause).

So, we shall see, eh?

I will predict, however, that the individual mandate does not survive SCOTUS. It's a toss up as to whether or not, they will sever it and leave any of the rest of the law intact. Hell, even Obama has waffled on that issue.

Well, they did just that with Sabarnes-Oxley fairly recently, and over the same Commerce clause. So never say never.

It'll definitely be interesting.

[Yonivore]

Well, at least one states sees Vinson's ruling as an injunction.


Wisconsin AG Declares Obamacare ‘Dead’ (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/258639/wisconsin-ag-declares-obamacare-dead-brian-bolduc)

[Yonivore]

And, Senate Republicans are keeping their promise...

Mitch McConnell's promise kept on ObamaCare (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-turn/2011/02/mcconnell_force_a_vote.html)


Thirteen Democrats won't join them, and maybe none will. But the process of pressuring vulnerable Democrats to go on the record in support of an unpopular, exorbitantly expensive and quite possibly unconstitutional statute has begun. And McConnell will do it again and again for the next two years.
And that's why repeal actions aren't in vain. the 20 some odd Democrats up for re-election in 2012 are going to be on record after record after Congressional record as being in support of this monstrosity of a federal overreach.

[Yonivore]

And Senate Democrats are starting to feel the heat from the public, as well...

ObamaCare Repeal: Harry Reid Confronted in Gourmet Market (http://berkshireeagle.blogspot.com/2011/01/obamacare-repeal-harry-reid-confronted.html)


In a voice that could be heard on the other side of this medium-sized food emporium, the shopper with ObamaCare Repeal on his mind -- no shrinking violet he -- loudly declared to his fellow gourmands (many in lines waiting to check-out) that indeed the graying personage standing right there amongst them was none other than "U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid," and, pointing directly at Mr. Reid, said, "This man is personally holding-up the ObamaCare Repeal bill by refusing to allow it to be brought to the floor of the U.S. Senate for a vote," and which law if left on the books "can eventually bankrupt the United States of America."

From the check-out area came applause, apparently at the spectacle.

The stony -- now red -- faced Sen. Reid, appearing both annoyed and mortified at being the focus of this unexpected public scolding in the midst of what was to be a quiet moment spent Saturday shopping, tried not to be noticed -- hard to do when one is waiting in a check-out line with someone just a few feet away loudly gesticulating and pointing.
:lmao

[Yonivore]

More...

Ben Nelson tries to repair damage at home (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31488.html)

If he hadn't sold his soul to Obama, there'd be nothing to repair.


Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson and his wife were leaving dinner at a new pizza joint near their home in Omaha one night last week when a patron began complaining about Nelson’s decisive vote in favor of the Senate’s health care bill.

Other customers started booing. A woman yelled, “Get him the hell out of here!” And the Nelsons and their dining companions beat a hasty retreat.
:lmao

[George Gervin's Afro]

More...

Ben Nelson tries to repair damage at home (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31488.html)

If he hadn't sold his soul to Obama, there'd be nothing to repair.


:lmao

stay classy conservatives..:lmao

[George Gervin's Afro]

And Senate Democrats are starting to feel the heat from the public, as well...

ObamaCare Repeal: Harry Reid Confronted in Gourmet Market (http://berkshireeagle.blogspot.com/2011/01/obamacare-repeal-harry-reid-confronted.html)


:lmao

Wow conservatives won't allow people to eat or shop in peace..

typical

[boutons_deux]

Reagan’s Solicitor General Charles Fried: ‘I Am Quite Sure That The Health Care Mandate Is Constitutional’

I am quite sure that the health care mandate is constitutional. … My authorities are not recent. They go back to John Marshall, who sat in the Virginia legislature at the time they ratified the Constitution, and who, in 1824, in Gibbons v. Ogden, said, regarding Congress’ Commerce power, “what is this power? It is the power to regulate. That is—to proscribe the rule by which commerce is governed.” To my mind, that is the end of the story of the constitutional basis for the mandate.

The mandate is a rule—more accurately, “part of a system of rules by which commerce is to be governed,” to quote Chief Justice Marshall. And if that weren’t enough for you—though it is enough for me—you go back to Marshall in 1819, in McCulloch v. Maryland, where he said “the powers given to the government imply the ordinary means of execution. The government which has the right to do an act”—surely, to regulate health insurance—“and has imposed on it the duty of performing that act, must, according to the dictates of reason, be allowed to select the means.” And that is the Necessary and Proper Clause. [...]

I think that one thing about Judge Vinson’s opinion, where he said that if we strike down the mandate everything else goes, shows as well as anything could that the mandate is necessary to the accomplishment of the regulation of health insurance.

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/02/fried-aca/

[Yonivore]

Wow conservatives won't allow people to eat or shop in peace..

typical
Nice take-away, George. I expected no less.

Where else are constituents supposed to engage their elected representatives? During the health care debate, there was a virtual boycott, by Democrats, of anything that would allow for interaction between them and those they purport to represent.

One would think you'd be more concerned with a Senate majority, and their leader, that refuse to allow the repeal bill to be brought to the floor and voted on. If they're so confident in its virtue, it should be no problem.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Nice take-away, George. I expected no less.

Where else are constituents supposed to engage their elected representatives? During the health care debate, there was a virtual boycott, by Democrats, of anything that would allow for interaction between them and those they purport to represent.

One would think you'd be more concerned with a Senate majority, and their leader, that refuse to allow the repeal bill to be brought to the floor and voted on. If they're so confident in its virtue, it should be no problem.

Reid's contituents voted him another term. According to your side's logic that would mean that they support him for not allowing the vote..

[ChumpDumper]

Nice take-away, George. I expected no less.

Where else are constituents supposed to engage their elected representatives? During the health care debate, there was a virtual boycott, by Democrats, of anything that would allow for interaction between them and those they purport to represent.

One would think you'd be more concerned with a Senate majority, and their leader, that refuse to allow the repeal bill to be brought to the floor and voted on. If they're so confident in its virtue, it should be no problem.Please, all the Republicans did last Congress was block legislation one ankle biting method after another.

You considered them heroes for it.

[ChumpDumper]

Reid's contituents voted him another term. The one's harrasing him are crazy tea pottiers..No shit. What did that accomplish other than making other douchebags cheer?

And yes, I felt the same way about Code Pink.

[Yonivore]

Reid's contituents voted him another term. According to your side's logic that would mean that they support him for not allowing the vote..
Can't help that Nevadans are that stupid. But, as Senate Majority leader, his constituency has expanded to more than just Nevadans. They include that guy in the gourmet food market.

[xrayzebra]

Please, all the Republicans did last Congress was block legislation one ankle biting method after another.

You considered them heroes for it.

I wished they had bitten them in the ass.

Suck it up Chump. Man-up. You still got
Harry to run interference.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Can't help that Nevadans are that stupid. But, as Senate Majority leader, his constituency has expanded to more than just Nevadans. They include that guy in the gourmet food market.

So now that the GOP is in control of the house they should listen to those citizens who support obamacare...

[ChumpDumper]

I wished they had bitten them in the ass.tmi


Suck it up Chump. Man-up. You still got
Harry to run interference.Universal health care is a fait accompli, like the ending of slavery and discrimination. Sometimes it just takes awhile for this country to get its head out of its ass.

[Yonivore]

So now that the GOP is in control of the house they should listen to those citizens who support obamacare...
They should be given the weight their voice command. The last poll I saw put support of Obamacare at about 13%.

[George Gervin's Afro]

tmi

Universal health care is a fait accompli , like the ending of slavery and Jim Crow. Sometimes it just takes awhile for this country to get its head out of its ass.

Yoni just claimed that healthcare is a privilige and if you can't afford care for your f*cked. I think the GOP needs to run on "Healthcare is a privilege not a right" in 2012...


The Dems need to make their campaign very simple and this is it. With all of the hubub of repeal I would remind the independants what the GOP considers affordable healthcare a privilege.

[George Gervin's Afro]

They should be given the weight their voice command. The last poll I saw put support of Obamacare at about 13%.

I'd like to see that poll.. so what if 45% feel that it shouldn't be repealed and 47% does..

[ChumpDumper]

Yoni just claimed that healthcare is a privilige and if you can't afford care for your f*cked. I think the GOP needs to run on "Healthcare is a privilege not a right" in 2012...


The Dems need to make their campaign very simple and this is it. With all of the hubub of repeal I would remind the independants what the GOP considers affordable healthcare a privilege.Republicans simply don't value life as much as they claim to.

It's ok, hypocrisy is not a crime.

[Yonivore]

Yoni just claimed that healthcare is a privilige and if you can't afford care for your f*cked. I think the GOP needs to run on "Healthcare is a privilege not a right" in 2012.

The Dems need to make their campaign very simple and this is it. With all of the hubub of repeal I would remind the independants what the GOP considers affordable healthcare a privilege.
Go for it.

[xrayzebra]

tmi

Universal health care is a fait accompli, like the ending of slavery and discrimination. Sometimes it just takes awhile for this country to get its head out of its ass.

Chump, stupid is stupid is stupid. Is health care
the same as slavery and discrimination. I dont
think so!

You seen any one dying on the streets lately
from lack of healthcare. On the other hand
how many sex slave cases have you seen?
I am serious as a heart attack. Slavery still
exist in our country while health care is
available to everyone.

That is a fact.

(cue in boutons)

[Yonivore]

For those of you who said the Senate would never allow the repeal to come up for a vote; it'll come to a vote between 5 and 6 P.M. Eastern, tomorrow, according to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

I seem to recall Harry Reid saying this wouldn't happen...

[ElNono]

I thought it was going to happen today...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/senate-vote-obamacare-repeal-today_541205.html

:sleep

[ElNono]

Actually, it looks like it's going to be today, and the reason is that there's two other actually useful amendments voted on too...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20030409-503544.html

[Yonivore]

I thought it was going to happen today...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/senate-vote-obamacare-repeal-today_541205.html

:sleep
The first sentence in your link...


The Senate will likely vote today...

It's still happening and, according to the man that sets the calender, that is tomorrow between 5:00 and 6:00 P.M. Eastern.

[ElNono]

Senators will vote late Wednesday afternoon on whether to overturn the health care law, a symbolic action driven by fierce opposition to the law among Republicans.

[Yonivore]

Actually, it looks like it's going to be today, and the reason is that there's two other actually useful amendments voted on too...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20030409-503544.html
I love this quote from your article...


In a statement, Reid hammered Republicans for forcing the vote, saying, "The time for fighting old battles is behind us."
Is he not aware of the challenges this law is facing in the courts? Old battle, indeed. :lmao

Then this...


"[T]hey want to replace the law of the land with a broken system we know doesn't work," he said. "They want to replace patients' rights with insurance companies' power. They want to replace health with sickness. They want to replace the promise of tomorrow with the pain of yesterday."
The "law of the land" of which he speaks is hanging on by a thread. And, then he devolves into the new liberal civility -- which, by the way, looks pretty much like the old liberal civility; Republicans want to kill you and give all your money to rich people.

[Yonivore]

Senators will vote late Wednesday afternoon on whether to overturn the health care law, a symbolic action driven by fierce opposition to the law among Republicans.
There are 13 Democrats searching their souls and polling data, right now...that'll be the indication of how "symbolic" is this measure. It's still a very real amendment of a very real measure and very real Senators will be forced to cast very real votes that will be viewed by very real constituents that cast very real votes.

[ElNono]

There are 13 Democrats searching their souls and polling data, right now...that'll be the indication of how "symbolic" is this measure. It's still a very real amendment of a very real measure and very real Senators will be forced to cast very real votes that will be viewed by very real constituents that cast very real votes.

No doubt.

Tell me, what are your expectations?
Personally, I expect this to be nothing more than a symbolic vote.

[Yonivore]

No doubt.

Tell me, what are your expectations?
Personally, I expect this to be nothing more than a symbolic vote.
I think the Democrats release at least two of the most vulnerable among them to vote yes.

I also think the Republicans will force this onto every piece of legislation between now and 2012. And, that constituents of the most vulnerable Democrats up for re-election in 2012, will be encouraged to let their feelings be known to the Democrats who hope to continue representing them.

I also think the Democrats are watching the courts.

[boutons_deux]

"Republicans will force this onto every piece of legislation between now and 2012"

yep, wasting their time (aka taxpayer money) while the economy remains mired in the Banksters' Great Depression

[George Gervin's Afro]

"Republicans will force this onto every piece of legislation between now and 2012"

yep, wasting their time (aka taxpayer money) while the economy remains mired in the Banksters' Great Depression

No I think it's a great plan ....continue to beat the dead horse and hope that people remember.. or rather the 51% who support repeal..

[George Gervin's Afro]

There are 13 Democrats searching their souls and polling data, right now...that'll be the indication of how "symbolic" is this measure. It's still a very real amendment of a very real measure and very real Senators will be forced to cast very real votes that will be viewed by very real constituents that cast very real votes.


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law


Health Care Law
58% Favor Repeal of Health Care Law, But Confidence in Repeal Is Down
Monday, January 31, 2011 Email to a Friend ShareThis.AdvertisementMost voters continue to favor repeal of the national health care law, but now that the Republican-run House has voted to repeal and sent it on to the Democratic-controlled Senate for action, confidence that the law ultimately will be repealed has fallen to its lowest level in four months.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 58% of Likely Voters at least somewhat favor repeal of the health care law, including 47% who Strongly Favor repeal. Thirty-eight percent (38%) oppose repeal, with 29% who are Strongly Opposed. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Support for repeal has ranged from 50% to 63% in weekly tracking since Democrats in Congress passed the law in March of last year.

But only 41% of voters say it’s at least somewhat likely the law will be repealed. That’s down eight points from early January and the lowest level measured since the beginning of October. Forty-six percent (46%) say repeal is unlikely. These findings include 17% who say it’s Very Likely and 16% who feel it’s Not At All Likely.

While most Republicans (54%) believe repeal is at least somewhat likely, 50% of Democrats and a plurality (49%) of voters not affiliated with either political party disagree.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on January 29-30, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Roughly half (49%) of all voters say the health care plan will be bad for the country. That figure has remained in the high 40s and low 50s since passage of the bill in late March of last year. Forty-one percent (41%) say the new plan will be good for the United States.

Forty-four percent (44%) believe repeal of the health care law will be good for the economy, while 30% say it will hurt economic conditions in the country. Fourteen percent (14%) feel repeal will have no impact on the economy, and another 12% are not sure. These findings have changed little since April 2010.

When it comes to job creation, voters have mixed feelings. Thirty-two percent (32%) say repeal will create new jobs, the highest finding since last August, but 36% disagree. Thirty-three percent (33%) are not sure what the job impact will be.

Although the Congressional Budget Office claims repealing the health care law will increase the federal budget deficit, a plurality of voters disagrees with that assessment. At the same time, most voters feel free market competition will do more to cut health care costs than government regulation.

Democrats continue to believe more strongly in the health care law than do Republicans and unaffiliateds.

Voters trust Republicans, by a 52% to 38% margin, more than Democrats to handle the issue of health care. In December, Democrats had a slight 45% to 43% edge, but it was the first time President Obama’s party had led on the issue since July of last year.

On a list of 10 important issues regularly tracked by Rasmussen Reports, health care falls second behind the economy in terms of importance to voters.

Additional information from this survey and a full demographic breakdown are available to Platinum Members only.

Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free) or follow us on Twitter or Facebook. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.

Survey toplines and crosstabs are available to Platinum Members only.

ShareThis
Rasmussen Reports is an electronic media company specializing in the collection, publication and distribution of public opinion polling information. We poll on a variety of topics in the fields of politics, business and lifestyle, updating our site’s content on a news cycle throughout the day, everyday.

Rasmussen Reports Platinum Members get an all-access pass to polling news, analysis and insight not available to the general public.

Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade. To learn more about our methodology, click here.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on January 29-30, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters
January 29-30, 2011

:lmao

[ElNono]

I think the Democrats release at least two of the most vulnerable among them to vote yes.

I also think the Republicans will force this onto every piece of legislation between now and 2012. And, that constituents of the most vulnerable Democrats up for re-election in 2012, will be encouraged to let their feelings be known to the Democrats who hope to continue representing them.

I also think the Democrats are watching the courts.

So you don't expect the repeal to succeed? IOW, you also think it's symbolic?

[Yonivore]

So you don't expect the repeal to succeed? IOW, you also think it's symbolic?
I think it's a vote that needs to be on the record. Call it what you want.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I think it's a vote that needs to be on the record. Call it what you want.

it's a big deal to republicans and no one else...

[Yonivore]

it's a big deal to republicans and no one else...
I think it's part of a long-term strategy.

[TeyshaBlue]

I think it's part of a long-term strategy.

Actually, you might be right. That being said, the GOP has not exactly wowed me with strategies, lately.

[Yonivore]

Actually, you might be right. That being said, the GOP has not exactly wowed me with strategies, lately.
Okay.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I think it's part of a long-term strategy.

for thier base or independents?

[Yonivore]

for thier base or independents?
...long-term strategy to repeal Obamacare.

[ElNono]

I think it's a vote that needs to be on the record. Call it what you want.

Okay

[ChumpDumper]

Chump, stupid is stupid is stupid. Is health care
the same as slavery and discrimination. I dont
think so!

You seen any one dying on the streets lately
from lack of healthcare. On the other hand
how many sex slave cases have you seen?
I am serious as a heart attack. Slavery still
exist in our country while health care is
available to everyone.

That is a fact.

(cue in boutons)Tell me how many cases of legal, state sanctioned slavery you have seen.

I'm serious as a heart attack.

[Wild Cobra]

Wow conservatives won't allow people to eat or shop in peace..

typical
But it's OK when liberals do it?

[jack sommerset]

Obamacare is done. Just a matter of time guys and gals. Just a matter of time.

[ElNono]

So what happened? Did it get repealed?

[Wild Cobra]

"Republicans will force this onto every piece of legislation between now and 2012"

yep, wasting their time (aka taxpayer money) while the economy remains mired in the Banksters' Great Depression
It's exactly what the democrats did. Introduce legislation they knew the republicans would be forced to vote NO for.

[Wild Cobra]

So what happened? Did it get repealed?
Anyone with a sense of the constitution sees that most or all will be repealed.

[ElNono]

It's exactly what the democrats did. Introduce legislation they knew the republicans would be forced to vote NO for.

Nobody is forced to vote NO. And all the procedural bullshit? What was that if not ankle biting?

[boutons_deux]

"You seen any one dying on the streets lately
from lack of healthcare."

I know I'm wasting my time, but check the international tables of infant mortality. Perinatal care for the poor in the USA is way below standard in other industrial countries with national health care plans.

Also, many uninsured, the same people who aren't very educated, put off going to free health care facilities until it's too late. They don't die on the street, but they do die from being sicker at a younger age that more affluent, insured people.

btw, "studies have shown" that black men and women get referred for expensive treatment less often than whites.

[Yonivore]

So what happened? Did it get repealed?
That silly 1099 rule was repealed today.

[ElNono]

Anyone with a sense of the constitution sees that most or all will be repealed.

Maybe it will. That said, the last thing I would take from you is constitutional analysis...

[ElNono]

That silly 1099 rule was repealed today.

Good for small business. Nothing wrong with improving the law.

Did they vote on the repeal?

Do you also find egregious that this stuff is going as part of an Airport building bill?

[Yonivore]

Good for small business. Nothing wrong with improving the law.
Well, according to the Administration, this provision was going to raise about $8 billion in revenue. That will really screw up the CBO estimates when we actually get around to voting on the entire bill on it economic merits, somewhere down the road.


Did they vote on the repeal?
It lost on a straight party line vote with the two Independents not present.


Do you also find egregious that this stuff is going as part of an Airport building bill?
What I find egregious is that the Senate Majority leader won't allow the legislation to reach the floor on its own merits.

Any port in a storm, I say.

[ChumpDumper]

lol yoni is outraged at legislative blocking tactics?

Seriously?

[ElNono]

Well, according to the Administration, this provision was going to raise about $8 billion in revenue. That will really screw up the CBO estimates when we actually get around to voting on the entire bill on it economic merits, somewhere down the road.

How did the GOP vote on this amendment?


It lost on a straight party line vote with the two Independents not present.

A symbolic vote. I guess the polls didn't scare the Dems...


What I find egregious is that the Senate Majority leader won't allow the legislation to reach the floor on its own merits.

Any port in a storm, I say.

Procedural bullshit is nothing new. You can look back at how the GOP acted in Congress for the past two years for a clear example.

[Yonivore]

How did the GOP vote on this amendment?
I don't know the break down; but, it took Democrats to pass it.


A symbolic vote. I guess the polls didn't scare the Dems...
Nope. But, it's not over.


Procedural bullshit is nothing new. You can look back at how the GOP acted in Congress for the past two years for a clear example.
It's always been said that making law was a lot like making sausage.

[ElNono]

I don't know the break down; but, it took Democrats to pass it.

Looks like the GOP didn't have an issue either:

By a bipartisan vote of 81-17, the Senate on Wednesday evening passed an amendment by Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) that would repeal a provision from the ACA that requires all businesses to fill out a tax form known as a "1099" each time they spend $600 or more.


Nope. But, it's not over.

As far as symbolic votes go, I would say it pretty much is.


It's always been said that making law was a lot like making sausage.

So why you have a problem with it now?

[Yonivore]

Looks like the GOP didn't have an issue either:

By a bipartisan vote of 81-17, the Senate on Wednesday evening passed an amendment by Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) that would repeal a provision from the ACA that requires all businesses to fill out a tax form known as a "1099" each time they spend $600 or more.
I was in favor of repealing the 1099 rule. Good for them.


As far as symbolic votes go, I would say it pretty much is.
Cool for you. At the end of the day, whether or not Obamacare survives is the central question. I predict it doesn't. I also predicte the electoral fates off approximately 20 Democrat Senators hinge on which side of the argument they choose to take.

Time will tell.


So why you have a problem with it now?
Because it goes against my position. Why else would I have a problem with it?

[ElNono]

I was in favor of repealing the 1099 rule. Good for them.

So you don't really think the extra $8 billion was a problem. Okay.


Cool for you.

I have nothing to do with symbolic votes.


Because it goes against my position. Why else would I have a problem with it?

So you basically admit you're just a cheerleader. You are willing to flip flop at will as long as it works for your team. Gotcha.

[ChumpDumper]

Because it goes against my position. Why else would I have a problem with it?yoni wears his hypocrisy like a medal.

[ElNono]

I think the Democrats release at least two of the most vulnerable among them to vote yes.

Sorry the vote didn't meet your expectations...

[Yonivore]

Sorry the vote didn't meet your expectations...
I don't get paid for my political acumen so, no big deal.

[Yonivore]

So you don't really think the extra $8 billion was a problem. Okay.
Not when I think the additional costs will eventually fall to repeal, no.


I have nothing to do with symbolic votes.
Could have fooled me; it was mentioned in just about every post.


So you basically admit you're just a cheerleader. You are willing to flip flop at will as long as it works for your team. Gotcha.
Haven't changed my position on Obamacare. It should be repealed and I don't care how that's achieved.

Oh, and I still hope Obama fails.

[Wild Cobra]

A symbolic vote. I guess the polls didn't scare the Dems...

I wonder how many will have regrets in 2012?

[ElNono]

Not when I think the additional costs will eventually fall to repeal, no.

Just like the repeal making it's way to the Senate floor?


Could have fooled me; it was mentioned in just about every post.

Because it was a very likely outcome. There's really not a lot of surprises when it comes to having a majority in a chamber of Congress.


Haven't changed my position on Obamacare. It should be repealed and I don't care how that's achieved.
Oh, and I still hope Obama fails.

Party before country. Gotcha.

[ElNono]

I wonder how many will have regrets in 2012?

Didn't we hear this when they passed the actual law?
Whatever remorse they had was not enough to vote for the repeal.

[Yonivore]

Just like the repeal making it's way to the Senate floor?
It ain't over.


Because it was a very likely outcome. There's really not a lot of surprises when it comes to having a majority in a chamber of Congress.
Whatever gets you through the night.


Party before country. Gotcha.
I think Obamacare is bad for the country, it's coincidental that Republicans are on my side of the argument.

[Yonivore]

Didn't we hear this when they passed the actual law?
Whatever remorse they had was not enough to vote for the repeal.
It was enough to lose the House, a bunch of state legislature, and governorships. We'll see how the electorate feels in another 2 years.

[ElNono]

It ain't over.

Okay


Whatever gets you through the night.

Hey, I don't like the mandate any more than you do, but I certainly don't lose any sleep over it.


I think Obamacare is bad for the country, it's coincidental that Republicans are on my side of the argument.

And wanting Barry to fail is what if not party cheerleading?


It was enough to lose the House, a bunch of state legislature, and governorships. We'll see how the electorate feels in another 2 years.

I disagree that strictly Obamacare was the reason for that. I put much more weight on the economic crisis, including the job losses and the depression, and the general disenchantment with Obama for not being that different from Bush.

Plus political swings in mid-terms elections are hardly new, even if this swing was relatively stronger than others. I mean, I still remember when the Dems were a seat short of obtaining supermajority back in '06.

[Yonivore]

And wanting Barry to fail is what if not party cheerleading?
A recognition that his domestic agenda is harmful to our country.


I disagree that strictly Obamacare was the reason for that. I put much more weight on the economic crisis, including the job losses and the depression, and the general disenchantment with Obama for not being that different from Bush.
I think you're wrong. But, oh well, that's okay; we're only two voters.


Plus political swings in mid-terms elections are hardly new, even if this swing was relatively stronger than others. I mean, I still remember when the Dems were a seat short of obtaining supermajority back in '06.
This was an historic swing and, I don't think it's over.

[Wild Cobra]

Didn't we hear this when they passed the actual law?
Whatever remorse they had was not enough to vote for the repeal.
Only 1/3rd of the senate seats were up for a vote last year. Look how many of them lost. 2012 will likely be a repeat.

[Yonivore]

Only 1/3rd of the senate seats were up for a vote last year. Look how many of them lost. 2012 will likely be a repeat.
Actually, it may be more of a shellacking. There are still only 1/3 of the Senate seats up for a vote but there are nearly twice as many Democrats having to win their seats as in 2010.

[ChumpDumper]

Just shows how horribly the Republicans performed when they were in power and lost all those seats.

[Wild Cobra]

Actually, it may be more of a shellacking. There are still only 1/3 of the Senate seats up for a vote but there are nearly twice as many Democrats having to win their seats as in 2010.
Cool...

[ElNono]

A recognition that his domestic agenda is harmful to our country.

Not surprised seeing you painting with a broad brush. That's what cheerleaders do. I guess we can agree that the tax cuts he signed into law are harmful to the country in the long term.


I think you're wrong. But, oh well, that's okay; we're only two voters.

Actually, only one voter. I'm merely an spectator at the moment.


This was an historic swing and, I don't think it's over.

I disagree. I think it was a somewhat expected swing after the complete Democrat dominance.

[ElNono]

Only 1/3rd of the senate seats were up for a vote last year. Look how many of them lost. 2012 will likely be a repeat.

I'm not sold on that yet. I think the perception of the GOP will also change as they're part of the government now too. It's not just Dems that will be held to their promises.

[Yonivore]

This is what Democrats have to look forward to until the 2012 elections...

Manchin lied to get elected (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/24/joe-manchin-health-care-reform_n_772955.html)

They are going to be flogged about the head and shoulders with their Obamacare votes for the next 20 or so months.

[Yonivore]

I'm not sold on that yet. I think the perception of the GOP will also change as they're part of the government now too. It's not just Dems that will be held to their promises.
Agreed but, so far, Republicans are keeping theirs. And, keep in mind, there are twice as many Democrats that have to hold their seats than Republicans in 2012. The odds were more favorable in 2010 and still, they lost seats.

[ElNono]

This is what Democrats have to look forward to until the 2012 elections...

Manchin lied to get elected (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/24/joe-manchin-health-care-reform_n_772955.html)

They are going to be flogged about the head and shoulders with their Obamacare votes for the next 20 or so months.

Or you would hope so...

[ElNono]

Agreed but, so far, Republicans are keeping theirs. And, keep in mind, there are twice as many Democrats that have to hold their seats than Republicans in 2012. The odds were more favorable in 2010 and still, they lost seats.

I don't think people give a rats ass about symbolic votes when it gets nothing done. I think people care about fixing the economy and getting people back to work. To me, the economy carries so much weight than anything else.

[Yonivore]

Or you would hope so...
That's just simple numbers. The proposition for Democrats -- without some really favorable results from this administration (who they've bought into, hook, line, and sinker) -- is more grim in 2012 than in 2010 and, face it, 2010 sucked for Democrats.

[Yonivore]

I don't think people give a rats ass about symbolic votes when it gets nothing done. I think people care about fixing the economy and getting people back to work. To me, the economy carries so much weight than anything else.
D'okie dokie. I'll not try to disabuse you of that notion any further. It will serve well in the coming election cycle.

[ElNono]

That's just simple numbers. The proposition for Democrats -- without some really favorable results from this administration (who they've bought into, hook, line, and sinker) -- is more grim in 2012 than in 2010 and, face it, 2010 sucked for Democrats.

2010 sucking for democrats was somewhat expected. Again, swings in mid-term elections are not really new. I do agree that it sucked more than what they were hoping it would, but again, I don't agree with you as far as the reasons behind it. I personally wanted the GOP to win both houses, and I thought they had a shot at it and blew it.

I don't think 2012 depends on anything much more different. The economy will make or break whatever reelection chances are there. I think who is the GOP candidate will also have a small but noticeable effect.

[ChumpDumper]

yoni is so busy cheerleading he has no inkling what Republicans actually plan to do about the economy or health care.

He is not alone.

[Yonivore]

2010 sucking for democrats was somewhat expected. Again, swings in mid-term elections are not really new. I do agree that it sucked more than what they were hoping it would, but again, I don't agree with you as far as the reasons behind it. I personally wanted the GOP to win both houses, and I thought they had a shot at it and blew it.

I don't think 2012 depends on anything much more different. The economy will make or break whatever reelection chances are there. I think who is the GOP candidate will also have a small but noticeable effect.
No need to repeat yourself, I understand your position. We just disagree and, that's okay.

I will say that Obamacare and the economic implications of its implementation are huge. Take for instance, the $8 billion trimmed today. That was done so the small business wouldn't lose their religion over all the additional paperwork.

Then there are all the fucking waivers given to crony companies like the SEIU. Don't think that won't be brought up.

There are a bunch of problems with Obamacare that go beyond the provision of health care services.

[ChumpDumper]

So what are the economic implications?

Give us numbers.

[ElNono]

D'okie dokie. I'll not try to disabuse you of that notion any further. It will serve well in the coming election cycle.

Well, I'm not particularly happy with this administration in many aspects either. And truth be told, I can't vote, and I don't know if I'll be able to by 2012 either, so I don't really have much of anything at stake here.

[ElNono]

I will say that Obamacare and the economic implications of its implementation are huge.

I think you're making much more of this than what it really is. As you said, we obviously disagree, and time will tell.

[Yonivore]

Well, I'm not particularly happy with this administration in many aspects either. And truth be told, I can't vote, and I don't know if I'll be able to by 2012 either, so I don't really have much of anything at stake here.
If you live here, you have plenty at stake.

[Yonivore]

I think you're making much more of this than what it really is. As you said, we obviously disagree, and time will tell.
Yep.

[Wild Cobra]

Actually, it may be more of a shellacking. There are still only 1/3 of the Senate seats up for a vote but there are nearly twice as many Democrats having to win their seats as in 2010.
That's only because of retirements and special elections. Both sides had 6 retiring. Of the 13 democrat incumbents, 3 lost. Of the 6 democrat replacements for retiring, 3 lost. The republicans had no losses.

As far as I know, only 10 of the 21 democrat incumbents have stated they are running. One is retiring. Of our two independents, both are up this cycle and Lieberman announced retirement. Still early. Only 3 of the 9 republicans announced running and Hutchinson announced retirement. Bet you liberals are happy.

Too early to tell, but if things remain as usual, I will assume republicans will gain another 5-7 seats, ending up with 56 to 58 seats. Almost a super-majority.

[ElNono]

If you live here, you have plenty at stake.

What I mean is about the election proper. Whoever gets elected is completely outside of my control at the moment. I just have to buckle up and go with it.

[Wild Cobra]

What I mean is about the election proper. Whoever gets elected is completely outside of my control at the moment. I just have to buckle up and go with it.
It's not outside your control. Your words could actually change someone's vote.

[ElNono]

It's not outside your control. Your words could actually change someone's vote.

I don't really talk politics with other people outside of here...

[Wild Cobra]

I don't really talk politics with other people outside of here...
Just saying, you do have a small degree of control should you chose to exercise it.

[ElNono]

Just saying, you do have a small degree of control should you chose to exercise it.

I think it has to do with the fact that the people closer to me are already set on what they think politically. I'm also pretty respectful of other people's opinions and choices, even if I don't necessarily agree with some of them.

[Wild Cobra]

I think it has to do with the fact that the people closer to me are already set on what they think politically. I'm also pretty respectful of other people's opinions and choices, even if I don't necessarily agree with some of them.
I'm the same with people in the real world. we sometimes have civil discussions, unlike here. Still, i see i do get my points across to a couple individuals, who otherwise only see the side they see on their preferred news.

I know I make a difference outside my vote.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I'm the same with people in the real world. we sometimes have civil discussions, unlike here. Still, i see i do get my points across to a couple individuals, who otherwise only see the side they see on their preferred news.

I know I make a difference outside my vote.

Preferred news? The entire conservative population tunes into one news station that reports news in a way they agree with...

Another irony alert!

[Wild Cobra]

Preferred news? The entire conservative population tunes into one news station that reports news in a way they agree with...

Another irony alert!
There you go, exposing your ignorance again.

Do you know what local radio stations are?

[Yonivore]

Sen. Bill Nelson: ‘Possibility but not Probability’ Health Care Law is Unconstitutional (http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/02/sen-bill-nelson-possibility-but-not-probability-health-care-law-is-unconstitutional.html)


Asked what would happen if the Supreme Court tosses out the health care law, Nelson responded:

“I think that's a possibility, but it's not a probability. We were very careful when we crafted this law. It is going to pass constitutional muster. There might be parts of it that might be struck down. But there is at the end of it what is called a severability clause, that says if parts are stuck down, that doesn't strike down the whole law.”

I guess Nelson still hasn't read the bill or followed the court cases...

:lmao

[ChumpDumper]

yoni should like this; the author is also a conservative plagiarist. Note the date.
Severability and Obamacare

Posted by Ben Domenech (Profile)

Tuesday, August 17th at 2:00PM EDT
19 Comments

Several state legislators have reached out to me recently with questions about the nature of severability and Obamacare. Since some Redstaters seem to have questions as well, I thought I’d explain a bit about what this means.

Most laws of large size and scope have something called a “severability clause” attached to them. Essentially, this means that if one part of a piece of large legislation is ruled unconstitutional by a court, that unconstitutional portion is “severed” from the rest of the bill — the ruling doesn’t stop the rest of the law from being enforced.

The trouble for Obamacare is that it doesn’t have a severability clause. If you’re an opponent of Obamacare, this all sounds pretty good — it indicates that if Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is successful in his Virginia case against the individual mandate, the entire legislation could collapse. But the answer isn’t that simple.

As I discuss with Maureen Martin in our latest podcast, what’s more likely is that the Supreme Court would just eliminate the portions of the bill which are tied directly to the individual mandate.

Some people have claimed the severability clause is absent from Obamacare because the writing process of the bill was such a cluster, the clause was just forgotten. But the reality, I’m told, is that a severability clause would’ve been added in conference between the House and Senate. Except that as you know, no such conference happened — everything had to be done via reconciliation after the House passed the Senate bill. Hence, no severability clause.

But the lack of a severability clause wouldn’t necessarily result in the overrule the rest of the legislation, which mostly have to do with spending and rationing — the expansion of Medicaid, Medicare cuts, and sweeping regulatory authority — and isn’t wrapped up in the mandate. This has been the Court’s approach to other issues, such as the recent Sarbanes-Oxley ruling, another law which lacked a severability clause, where they invalidated a portion of the law and allowed the rest to stand.

Some things that the Court would likely leave unaffected would include the expansion of Medicaid, reporting obligations for businesses and hospitals, expansion of the Children’s Health Insurance Program, funds for “family planning,” expansion of state aging and disability resource centers, expanded funding for prevention programs and workplace education, reforms to inpatient rehabilitation and hospices, the addition of value-based payments for physicians and hospitals, and many provisions relating to Medicare services in rural areas… And that’s just for starters. The point is that the overwhelming portion of this legislation is not tied directly to the individual mandate.

Yet even if the Court behaved in the same way when deciding the constitutionality of the individual mandate, in practical terms, judging the mandate unconstitutional would set off a domino effect throughout the insurance industry. The mandate is the only thing which made other anti-market regulatory demands (such as guaranteed issue and community rating) workable for the industry. Despite Howard Dean’s argument that the individual mandate is unimportant (the reality is that Dean agrees with me — people will simply game the mandate) in the larger scheme of things, removing it and leaving other requirements intact would bring the entire insurance industry to the point of collapse.

So even if the lack of a severability clause doesn’t turn out to matter, elimination of the individual mandate as unconstitutional will create an untenable situation for insurers and eliminate many of the aspects of the legislation President Obama has touted. The push for further reform, at that point, would be inevitable.

[Yonivore]

Before it became the centerpiece of his health care reform legislation, President Obama beat Hillary Clinton about the head and shoulders over the individual mandate and fines to enforce it.


UhYQ-GQyEB0

Barack Obama is an unprincipled liar.

[ChumpDumper]

Between single payer and nothing, there was the mandate.

It's not surprising yoni doesn't know the meaning of the word compromise, but that doesn't mean the practice doesn't exist.